On Jul 24, 2013, at 2:32 PM, James Beirne wrote:
> Oh, I misunderstood. Yes, it is, but again, I don't see why the rules
> permit overruling if it's considered to be inappropriate.
Because I didn't write that rule. :) It's just my opinion that OVERRULE
shouldn't be used to introduce new opinions.
On Jul 24, 2013, at 1:11 AM, James Beirne wrote:
> I'm not sure that I have introduced anything new to the case, rather
> than explaining why I felt the original judgement was inappropriate.
Isn't the idea of a 7-day TIME OUT a new opinion?
—Machiavelli
Oh, I misunderstood. Yes, it is, but again, I don't see why the rules
permit overruling if it's considered to be inappropriate.
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 3:03 PM, Tanner Swett wrote:
> On Jul 24, 2013, at 1:11 AM, James Beirne wrote:
>> I'm not sure that I have introduced anything new to the case,
On Jul 24, 2013, at 1:11 AM, James Beirne wrote:
> I'm not sure that I have introduced anything new to the case, rather
> than explaining why I felt the original judgement was inappropriate.
Isn't the idea of a 7-day TIME OUT a new opinion?
—Machiavelli
On Wed, 24 Jul 2013, omd wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 12:21 AM, Tanner Swett wrote:
> > I object to this judgement of OVERRULE.
>
> Gratuitous: For the record, I think that scshunt's offense is not even
> close to the levels of negligence various officers have shown over the
> years; alth
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 12:21 AM, Tanner Swett wrote:
> I object to this judgement of OVERRULE.
Gratuitous: For the record, I think that scshunt's offense is not even
close to the levels of negligence various officers have shown over the
years; although this has largely been during lulls, as exce
My ruling was based on rule 911, which states, in part:
>OVERRULE with a valid replacement judgement for the prior
>case, appropriate if the prior judgement was inappropriate in
>the prior case and the replacement judgement is appropriate
>for the prior case; the re
I object to this judgement of OVERRULE. I think that since OVERRULE is not
subject to oversight, it should not be used to introduce new opinions, but
rather only to affirm existing opinions (presumably implementing the judgement
suggested by the appellant, or some such), or to effect a judgement
8 matches
Mail list logo
