Search results

This objection is sustained. Whether an issue or fact is material is ultimately a conclusion for the trier of fact to make. The Crown may rephrase this question into one that asks about the technical or mathematical implications of a decision, but not one that delves into speculation or asks for...

This is granted.

In the interest of fairness, the Crown shall have one round of follow-up questions should they so choose. After that (or if the Crown relieves themselves of this right) we shall proceed into closing statements.

The possibility of having the entirety of the Magistrate Court fill in as one collective vote that could break a tie (or in this case, a failure to meet quorum) was discussed at the formation of the courts, but was abandoned due to concerns of constitutionality. Out of all the resolutions...

IN THE CHANCERY OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA NOTICE OF PROCEDURAL POSTURE This case was filed prior to the promulgation of Ch. R. & P. § 1, which allows the Chancery to delegate one member of the bench to serve as presiding officer during the trial's existence. Because of this, the rule was...

This is sustained. The question contains modifiers such that if the witness were to simply answer "Yes," the record would be unclear as to what he meant. The Crown is ordered to revise this question.

This objection is overruled. Nowhere in any authorizing statute, rule, or binding precedent exists any statement requiring objections to be filed within the timeframe of the associated filing. For the same reason that parties must be allowed to raise their objections after the filing of the...

Notice to interested parties: Ch. R. & P. § 1 is implemented upon unanimous consent, and I will now act as presiding officer. Please read the Chancery Rules and Procedures for more information. I will be proceeding with this case at my earliest convenience.

In a 2-0 vote, the Chancery has agreed to offer both parties the following optional procedural change: Ch. R. & P. § 1 will take effect immediately, despite that rule being promulgated after this case's filing. High Chancellor Smallfries will be appointed as Presiding Officer in this case and...

Procedurally added numbering to the above for ease of reference.

The Crown shall now have twenty-four hours to ask questions of the witness. The bench shall respond to the objections when we can.

At this time, the Claimant shall have twenty-four hours to pose their questions to the witness, @Thritystone. The witness is reminded he is under oath at all times during this case.

The Crown shall have seventy-two hours to submit their opening statement.

The Chancery voted 2-0 to all sections. There is no Presiding officer in this case. As you correctly implicate, that rule change does not apply to these proceedings.

We do not find this line of reasoning convincing. It is entirely appropriate for an entity to engage in behavior that is so basic and necessary for the elementary function of its operation even though an authorizing authority did not give explicit assent for them to do so. See Ayatha v. Rex...

Discovery has concluded at this time. Claimant shall have seventy-two hours to produce their opening statement.

IN THE CHANCERY OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA WITNESS SUMMONS @Thritystone is summoned as a witness in this case. The summoned shall have forty-eight hours to declare their presence to this court. By doing so, the summoned swears that any testimony given shall be truthful and complete under...

In a 2-0 vote, the Chancery denies this witness. We do not think this witness would be useful in advancing the facts of this case. In a 2-0 vote, the Chancery grants this witness. In a 2-0 vote, the Chancery denies this witness. As written in a response from the bench above, the Chancery does...

Added. Applies to all future cases filed.

To what end do these three individuals each serve as a witness?