Murphy wrote:
> The idea is that the CotC may effectively accept an Excess CFJ (by
> assigning it within the usual time limit), defer it (by assigning it
> beyond the usual time limit), or reject it (by failing to assign it
> at all). This could also say "The time limit ... is revoked", but
> thi
Levi wrote:
In this vein, everything after the
first paragraph of this proposal could be replaced with:
"The time limit for assigning a judge to an Excess CFJ is extended
by 106 years."
Is this only due to the deferral process not being specific enough? or
have I missed something else here?
Ed Murphy wrote:
Levi wrote:
Attempt at cleaning up the Excess CFJ rule. I've used the following
as a basis for this change
1. The use of 'dismiss' is unclear, due to DISMISS being a valid
judgement for a CFJ, but dismissal through a CFJ being an
Excess CFJ should be different to dismissal
Levi wrote:
Attempt at cleaning up the Excess CFJ rule. I've used the following
as a basis for this change
1. The use of 'dismiss' is unclear, due to DISMISS being a valid
judgement for a CFJ, but dismissal through a CFJ being an
Excess CFJ should be different to dismissal under rule 1565
Attempt at cleaning up the Excess CFJ rule. I've used the following
as a basis for this change
1. The use of 'dismiss' is unclear, due to DISMISS being a valid
judgement for a CFJ, but dismissal through a CFJ being an
Excess CFJ should be different to dismissal under rule 1565
2. My guess th
5 matches
Mail list logo
