On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 1:19 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The noun phrase "modified X" (e.g. "secret rule") may not automatically be
> a strict sub-instance of X ("rule") and all the rules governing X. In
> the past, for example, we decided in the courts that a "limited executor"
> was a distinct thing from an "executor" so that rules governing the latter
> did not necessarily apply to the former. Context is important.
I don't recall that precedent. Do you happen to have the case number?
I'm not sure it's all that relevant anyway, since "limited executor"
had an explicit definition in the rules.
-root
