Tuesday, September 16, 2014 5:31:48 PM
Thus as this poster has mentioned, simply looking at stats fails to consider the specifics, and odds of an en banc given this very interesting situation.
What would be more interesting to me, is to understand that 1% that was accepted and the type of rationale the CAFC uses in determining its decisions to review.
A real stat which would be impossible to find/determine is of those cases that legitimately had a real rationale for review, how many get an En Banc.
The district courts are still pretty good, so it makes sense that very few cases are reviewed at an en banc level. But it doesn't mean that there was not an error here, so just throwing it into the 1% bucket is a bit of an oversimplification in my view. Safe assumption to avoid disappointement but also potentially overly conservative given the merits.
JMHO
NanoViricides Reports that the Phase I NV-387 Clinical Trial is Completed Successfully and Data Lock is Expected Soon • NNVC • May 2, 2024 10:07 AM
ILUS Files Form 10-K and Provides Shareholder Update • ILUS • May 2, 2024 8:52 AM
Avant Technologies Names New CEO Following Acquisition of Healthcare Technology and Data Integration Firm • AVAI • May 2, 2024 8:00 AM
Bantec Engaged in a Letter of Intent to Acquire a Small New Jersey Based Manufacturing Company • BANT • May 1, 2024 10:00 AM
Cannabix Technologies to Deliver Breath Logix Alcohol Screening Device to Australia • BLO • Apr 30, 2024 8:53 AM
Hydromer, Inc. Reports Preliminary Unaudited Financial Results for First Quarter 2024 • HYDI • Apr 29, 2024 9:10 AM