Michael Norrish wrote:
Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Let's say, in this case, the decision is "OVERTURN AND REVERSE". > Did that "OVERTURN AND REVERSE" apply to Goethe's FALSE or > Sherlock's TRUE? There's no legal distinction the appeals court can > make to distinguish them. I don't imagine the Appeals Court will make that decision then. I suspect instead they'll suggest that the case be re-assigned.
I envisioned conditional responses like "I move to sustain X's judgement of CFJ 5000. I move to overturn and reverse Y's judgement of CFJ 5000." but reassignment is unquestionably more elegant.
If you like, I think my argument is in the best interests of the game: do you really want an unresolvable CFJ paralysing the system for evermore? (You might call the same CFJ again I suppose.)
Which, in fact, e did.
