Index ← 3438 CFJ 3439 3440 → text
==============================  CFJ 3439  ==============================

      CFJ 3429 has exactly one judgement, TRUE.

========================================================================

Caller:                       G.

Judge:                        omd
Judgement:                    FALSE

========================================================================

History:

Called by G.:                 26 Oct 2014
Assigned to omd:              09 Nov 2014
Judged FALSE by omd:          10 Nov 2014

========================================================================

Caller's Arguments:

In addition to the Moot not being resolved in a timely manner, the
Moot process never explicitly voids the standing judgement.  What's
the result?

========================================================================

Judge's Arguments:

Rule 991 states:

      At any time, each CFJ is either open (default), or has exactly
      one judgement.

This requires us to interpret "assigning" a judgement to a case as
setting the 'current judgement' to that one, superseding any previous
judgement.

CFJ 3429 was originally judged FALSE (I assume successfully).  After
reconsideration, a second FALSE judgement was assigned, and then the
case was entered into Moot - on 11 Oct 2014 16:43:04.  On 25 Oct 2014
23:31:20 G. attempted to resolve the Moot with various options, but
failed, because it was over 14 days later.  Accordingly, while DISMISS
was apparently winning(?), it certainly was not validly assigned as a
judgement (and I don't see any reason the case would have a judgement
of TRUE, per one of the statements below).  The only question is
whether CFJ 3429 still has the second FALSE judgement - whether the
term "entering a judgement into Moot" implies de-assigning the
judgement without the Rules actually saying so.

The thing is, even though Rule 991 explicitly defines CFJ judgement as
a switchlike entity, nobody is required to track it, either now or in
any recent proposal.  In normal circumstances, we might want to take
into account whether a judgement remains assigned to its case for the
purpose of determining its precedential value, but regardless of
whether "Moot" implies de-assigning the judgement, it definitely
implies that the mooted judgement should have minimal such value.
Therefore, whether the judgement is still assigned is not relevant to
the game.

========================================================================