On Tue, 21 Sep 2010, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Draft 2: Motions to Reconsider
>
> If a non-Appeals judicial question has a judgement in effect, that
> has been in effect for less than seven days, has not been appealed,
> and has not had a Motion to Reconsider filed for it at any time
On Tue, 21 Sep 2010, Ed Murphy wrote:
> G. wrote:
>
> > [most appeals cases end up remanded, the first time at least]
> >
> > Proto: auto-remand
> >
> > Create the following rule: Remand for Clarification
> >
> > If a judicial case:
> > 1) has a judgement, that has been in effect f
G. wrote:
> [most appeals cases end up remanded, the first time at least]
>
> Proto: auto-remand
>
> Create the following rule: Remand for Clarification
>
> If a judicial case:
> 1) has a judgement, that has been in effect for less than seven days,
>that has not been appealed;
On Mon, 2010-09-20 at 10:41 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Let me know if you see a hole in this logic or in the protection that
> (2) gives...
Yep, I missed point (2) altogether, somehow.
--
ais523
On Mon, 20 Sep 2010, ais523 wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-09-20 at 10:08 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > [most appeals cases end up remanded, the first time at least]
> >
> > Proto: auto-remand
> >
> > Create the following rule: Remand for Clarification
> >
> > If a judicial case:
> > 1) has a
On Mon, 2010-09-20 at 10:08 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> [most appeals cases end up remanded, the first time at least]
>
> Proto: auto-remand
>
> Create the following rule: Remand for Clarification
>
> If a judicial case:
> 1) has a judgement, that has been in effect for less than seven
6 matches
Mail list logo
