Index ← 2834 CFJ 2835 2836 → text
==============================  CFJ 2835  ==============================

    CFJ 2830a has been judged.


Caller:                                 Murphy

Judge:                                  ais523
Judgement:                              FALSE



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.