============================== CFJ 2929 ==============================
For a rule which purports to allow a person to perform an action
"without objection", N (as defined by Rule 1728) is implicitly
specified by that rule as 1.
Called by Murphy: 16 Dec 2010 01:35:40 GMT
Assigned to Yally: 20 Dec 2010 07:02:28 GMT
Judged FALSE by Yally: 23 Dec 2010 23:16:30 GMT
Appealed by Murphy: 24 Dec 2010 01:05:27 GMT
Appealed by Roujo: 24 Dec 2010 01:22:41 GMT
Appeal 2929a: 24 Dec 2010 01:40:55 GMT
Appealed by omd: 24 Dec 2010 01:40:55 GMT
REMANDED on Appeal: 18 Jan 2011 20:44:25 GMT
Assigned to Yally: 18 Jan 2011 20:44:25 GMT
Yally recused: 04 Feb 2011 22:48:43 GMT
Assigned to G.: 14 Feb 2011 21:35:57 GMT
Judged TRUE by G.: 14 Feb 2011 22:41:55 GMT
Gratuitous Arguments by omd:
The default value of N is clearly defined in Rule 1728, not
the rule purporting to allow the action.
Gratuitous Arguments by Murphy:
"without objection" = "without 1 objection(s)" used
to be explicit, and still is the ordinary-language reading, especially
since "objection" is singular.
Judge Yally's Arguments:
Indeed, I agree that without objection implies that N=1. However, Rule
2324 explicitly overrules this, and thus, I judge this FALSE.
Gratuitous Arguments by G.:
Actually, I intend with 2 support to file a Motion to Reconsider with
> Did you take into account the fact that R754 puts common language in
> higher-powered rules (e.g. the singular form of "objection") as having
> precedence over explicit definitions in lower-powered rules?
> The purpose of that in R754 is precisely and directly intended to
> protect against someone re-defining a common term (say using a lower-power
> rule to define "the" in a higher- powered rule to mean "I have power-3").
Appellant omd's Arguments:
I support and do so, noting again that Rule 1728 explicitly allows
Judge G.'s Arguments:
On Fri, 24 Dec 2010, omd wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 2:11 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > On Thu, 23 Dec 2010, omd wrote:
> > >
> > > I support and do so, noting again that Rule 1728 explicitly allows
> > > specification otherwise.
> > Gratuitous: The question is whether the singular term "objection"
> > with no N uses common language under R754 guidance to "otherwise
> > specify" 1 as per R1728, so an "other otherwise" specification of
> > N=8 conflicts (and would only therefore only potentially work at
> > power-1). -G.
> Hmm... I didn't think about it that way. You're probably right, actually.
I still think my above argument looks correct, that "without objection" with
no N is sufficiently singular to "otherwise specify" N as 1. TRUE.