woggle wrote: > On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 14:46, Ed Murphy <emurph...@socal.rr.com> wrote: >> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=3072a >> >> ============================ Appeal 3072a ============================ >> >> Panelist: woggle >> Decision: REMAND >> >> Panelist: Yally >> Decision: OVERRULE/NOT GUILTY >> >> Panelist: Tanner L. Swett >> Decision: OVERRULE/NOT GUILTY >> >> ======================================================================== > > I CFJ: CFJ 3072a has been judged. > > Arguments: OVERRULE/NOT GUILTY doesn't specify prejudice and therefore > is not a valid judgment in this case. Therefore they are not "such > published opinions" as required by R2341 to cause the panel to act: > As soon as possible after a judicial panel is assigned to a > case, each member of the panel SHALL publish an 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. > > (emphasis added)
There used to be a rule to the effect that AFFIRM and REMAND implicitly defaulted to without-prejudice, while REMIT and OVERRULE implicitly defaulted to with-prejudice. Looks like I missed its repeal (as did the other panelists).
