Or maybe not (warning, PDF link)
I particularly like paragraph 9.
Article found here:
The Court granted the motion, even though the Judge is an Auburn fan.
ROLL TIDE!
Or maybe not (warning, PDF link)
I particularly like paragraph 9.
Article found here:
The Court granted the motion, even though the Judge is an Auburn fan.
ROLL TIDE!
Awful spelling and grammar, but a solid grasp of priorities? Yep, that’d be an Alabama fan.
Aw lighten up. It’s funny.
I wasn’t being sarcastic. Guy’s got his priorities right!
Ah. That would explain that whooshing noise I heard then.
I’m trying a case on January 6, but no jury is involved, and we should finish the thing that day. Plus, I don’t have tickets to the BCS Championship…
It is funny, but I don’t think it should have been granted. This was a wrongful death case, wasn’t it? I think the plantiffs were correct to argue that the seriousness of this case, and the length of time already spent in litigation, make it inappropriate to grant a continuance on such frivolous grounds.
Those are valid points, but in theory the delay in this instance could actually help the plaintiff. Some jurors could be resentful about having to deal with jury duty during Bowl Week, and take it out on the Plaintiff.
I might have granted the motion, but required the moving party to pay the costs involved with the delay.
I would have guessed that the jurors would be more likely to take out their frustration on the ones in charge of scheduling, ie., The System.
ETA: never mind, I see it’s a wrongful death case, not a criminal trial.