RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:big rallyI listened to the argument and, fwiw and speaking as a former trial lawyer, I like our chances. LOGM's lawyer was articulate except when challenged, especially in the exchange about building a bridge, whereas Mr Shunk was more persuasive for more of the time.
Perhaps the key exchange came right at the end when the Justice asked Mr. Shunk to confirm that he did not make a 51c objection to Hilton because he assumed that the record already reflected this. The judge practically led Shunk into confirming that that was his position, which I took as a good sign-Appeal courts do not like deciding cases on questionable technical arguments.