G. wrote:
> By the way, the other thing we should do is have a proposal that
> ratifies the last couple months of Appeals case assignments.
> Maybe if Murphy does a database pull on these to minimize the risk
> of missing any?
I recommend that the proposal say what it really means, e.g. "ratify
the following: no assignment of a panel to an appeal case since the
repeal of Rule 2226 (Judicial Rank) was invalid solely due to the
panel having the wrong number of members". That said, here's a list
of alleged appeal assignments since then:
assessor=# select resolved from proposals where number=6961;
resolved
------------------------
2011-03-03 10:43:51-08
(1 row)
cotc=# select distinct m.number, e.date from events e join matters m on
m.id = e.matter where m.typecode = 'Appeal' and e.typecode = 'assign'
and e.date >= '2011-03-03 10:43:51-08' order by e.date;
number | date
--------+------------------------
2979a | 2011-03-30 09:21:15-07
2980a | 2011-03-30 09:22:24-07
2982a | 2011-04-04 12:38:28-07
3004a | 2011-04-23 20:39:11-07
3004b | 2011-04-28 19:23:18-07
(5 rows)
