============================ Appeal 2770a ============================
Appeal initiated: 07 Mar 2010 18:39:38 GMT
Assigned to G. (panelist): 07 Mar 2010 20:45:13 GMT
Assigned to ais523 (panelist): 07 Mar 2010 20:45:13 GMT
Assigned to woggle (panelist): 07 Mar 2010 20:45:13 GMT
G. moves to REMAND: 10 Mar 2010 18:26:48 GMT
ais523 moves to REMAND: 10 Mar 2010 18:32:42 GMT
woggle moves to REMAND: 11 Mar 2010 22:22:36 GMT
Final decision (REMAND): 11 Mar 2010 22:22:36 GMT
Gratuitous Arguments by Murphy:
> On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 12:39, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> I support and do so because the judgment fails to address CFJ 2489, which
>> appears to contradict.
> I was not aware of this CFJ when I issued my decision.
Based on the above, I recommend REMAND.
Panelist G.'s Arguments:
Judge Yally's interpretation is thoughtful and reasonable. It doesn't
contradict current text, but rather past precedents of which e was
unaware. E should specifically consider whether eir current reasoning
is sufficient to overturn precedent. REMAND.
Panelist ais523's Arguments:
I also opine REMAND on this; if a judge doesn't have all the information
when they make a judgement, the best option is to allow them to
reconsider with all the information available, unless the judge doesn't
want to take the case.