Ian Kelly wrote: >How so? CFJ 1671 appears to have relied on CFJ 1623 for its precedent >in this area.
The reasoning of CFJ 1671 certainly relied on the reasoning of CFJ 1623. The important bit is the judgement of TRUE in CFJ 1623, which is the bit that forms a true legal precedent, which incorporates the finding that partnerships can be persons. Invalidating CFJ 1623 would not diminish the precedential value of that judgement. To overturn the precedent of CFJ 1671 you'd have to show that it was clearly contrary to the rules (R217), not merely that you'd have judged it differently. -zefram
