Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2835 =================== CFJ 2835 (Interest Index = 1) ==================== CFJ 2830a has been judged. ======================================================================== Caller: Murphy Judge: ais523 Judgement: FALSE ======================================================================== History: Called by Murphy: 17 Aug 2010 04:55:07 GMT Assigned to ais523: 22 Aug 2010 12:12:12 GMT Judged FALSE by ais523: 25 Aug 2010 07:49:39 GMT ======================================================================== Caller's Arguments: Relevant sequence of events: 1) Murphy opined AFFIRM without prejudice 2) Warrigal opined AFFIRM without prejudice 3) Warrigal changed to REMAND without prejudice 4) G. opined OVERRULE without prejudice 5) Murphy changed to REMAND without prejudice 6) G. allegedly changed to REMAND without prejudice Rule 911's panel-majority clause specifies "immediately after" with only two possible targets: a) "all members have so published". This occurred at #4, but there was no majority opinion at that time. b) "the time limit for so publishing has ended". This hasn't happened yet. Thus, if there's no majority when the last panelist weighs in, then all panelists have until the end of the time limit to change their minds, even if a majority happens to be achieved somewhere in between. Which may have been intentional. ======================================================================== Caller's Evidence: Rule 911, relevant excerpt: As soon as possible after a judicial panel is assigned, each member of the panel SHALL publish an appeals opinion indicating a valid judgement to assign to the case -- only the last such published opinion for each member is used to determine the outcome. Each member SHOULD choose an appropriate judgement, and include arguments for eir choice. If, immediately after either all members have so published or the time limit for so publishing has ended, a majority of the members have opined for the same judgement, the panel acts to deliver the judgement in question. If the panel publishes a valid judgement via another mechanism specified in the Rules, the requirement for individual members to publish individual opinions is waived. ======================================================================== Judge ais523's Arguments: The rule is unambiguous (although quite possibly broken), and the caller's arguments are correct. ========================================================================