"The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision without oral argument as to Appellant and Wayne N. Hage. Fed. R. App."
This is probably one of the most biased denials of Due Process in favor of the Government I think I have read yet. Please humor me and put the shoe on the other foot for couple minutes and read it again.
I think they stepped on their own feet in this if we want to argue bias...
As an initial matter- appellate courts rarely hold oral argument and even if they do, no new evidence is allowed. The purpose of the appellate court is to review the trial court's interpretation of the law and see if it was right. The facts are what the parties presented to the trial court. No do overs, or add-ons.
For a bit of history of appellate court see-
http://www.fjc.gov/history/home.nsf/page/tu_olmstead_jurisdiction.htmlIn the Hage case, no reason to hold oral argument, wasn't an issue of deciding which interpretation of the law applied. Rather the trial judge made up law that is not supported by past authority of congress and the US Supreme Court. The Statute of Limitations is not the crux of the case. Basically he conflated a drovers right to be appurtenant with the water rights.
Additional reading is the companion case on whether the fencing of the creek is a taking-http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/estate-of-e-wayne-hage-v-united-states/
