DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 1234 judged by Taral

2008-11-25 Thread Ed Murphy
> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1234 FYI, the bug in the summary is fixed now; all judgements are displayed, even if the judge's assignment also has a recusal or transfer tied to it. (This should only affect old cases; currently, a remand generates a new assignment in

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 1234 judged by Taral

2008-11-19 Thread Taral
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 6:06 AM, Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > TRUE, I believe. along with the denying. No, I did not assign a judgement. I was assigned to judge the motion, not the question. -- Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give y

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 1234 judged by Taral

2008-11-19 Thread Ed Murphy
ehird wrote: > On 19 Nov 2008, at 14:03, comex wrote: > >> How was it judged? > > > TRUE, I believe. along with the denying. The history backs this up. Dunno why the summary omits Kelly's judgement (it doesn't do that for other ancient appealed cases); I'll look into it later. Context: At t

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 1234 judged by Taral

2008-11-19 Thread Elliott Hird
On 19 Nov 2008, at 14:03, comex wrote: How was it judged? TRUE, I believe. along with the denying.

DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 1234 judged by Taral

2008-11-19 Thread comex
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 7:04 AM, Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > OFF: [CotC] CFJ 1234 judged by Taral > == CFJ 1234 == > Assigned to Taral: 21 Aug 2000 03:29:12 GMT How was it judged?