On Jan 15, 2008 12:02 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Iammars wrote:
>
> > Just out of curiosity, is it considered okay to mention the previous
> > judges arguments if you're the second judge on a case?
>
> Yes. There used to be a rule that you weren't allowed to make the
> same decisi
Iammars wrote:
Just out of curiosity, is it considered okay to mention the previous
judges arguments if you're the second judge on a case?
Yes. There used to be a rule that you weren't allowed to make the
same decision using the same reasoning, but nowadays this is covered
by the expectation
Just out of curiosity, is it considered okay to mention the previous judges
arguments if you're the second judge on a case?
--
-Iammars
www.jmcteague.com
On Jan 14, 2008 6:28 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 14, 2008 4:24 PM, Iammars <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Uh, I'm not even in the Vote Market.
> >
> But this does not preclude you from becoming party to it to fill this
> Buy Ticket.
I know.
>
>
> > Besides, the Vote Marke
On Jan 14, 2008 4:24 PM, Iammars <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Uh, I'm not even in the Vote Market.
>
But this does not preclude you from becoming party to it to fill this
Buy Ticket.
> Besides, the Vote Market is for votes, not judgings.
>
There are certain elements that would want you to believe
Uh, I'm not even in the Vote Market.
Besides, the Vote Market is for votes, not judgings.
And yeah, another controversial CFJ! I'll get around to a proojudgement as
soon as my glasses get fixed.
On Jan 14, 2008 6:18 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 14, 2008 4:05 PM, Zefram <[
6 matches
Mail list logo
