My ruling was based on rule 911, which states, in part: > OVERRULE with a valid replacement judgement for the prior > case, appropriate if the prior judgement was inappropriate in > the prior case and the replacement judgement is appropriate > for the prior case; the replacement judgement is assigned to > the prior case
I'm not sure that I have introduced anything new to the case, rather than explaining why I felt the original judgement was inappropriate. - Ien On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 1:21 AM, Tanner Swett <swe...@mail.gvsu.edu> wrote: > I object to this judgement of OVERRULE. I think that since OVERRULE is not > subject to oversight, it should not be used to introduce new opinions, but > rather only to affirm existing opinions (presumably implementing the > judgement suggested by the appellant, or some such), or to effect a judgement > in a case where it is patently clear that that judgement is uniquely > appropriate (and thus there is no room for opinion). Introducing new opinions > should be done using REMIT or REMAND, so that future judges have the ability > to contest the opinion. > > —Machiavelli
