Originally Posted by Tincon
I believe you may be presenting a False Continuum. While there may surely be some exceptions to the rule here, it is absurd to ascribe them any great significance absent some evidence that oral arguments will carry an unusual weight in these cases.
As I said before, absent some tactical reason for not giving notice (as has been alleged to exist), it is my opinion that it should have been given. It is not however, a significant factor in either case.
Interestingly, the worst case scenario seems to have been achieved in the Richards case, where notice was given (possibly eliminating any theoretical tactical advantage), but the notice was materially deficient (possibly precluding compliance with rule 5.1).
This may be a dumb question, but did you mean "worse case" instead of the "worst case" you typed?
If it were "worst case" I'd imagine that you expect dire consequences for the deficiency but you indicated previously that you didn't think the issue would be significant in either case.
I suspect (and hope) it was just a typo.