The ages do indeed fit, but how do you know it is the same case? It seems logical that this is the same case since the original article I posted stated there is no apparent precedence. If this case was already decided it would appear there indeed is precedence.
He or she doesn't know that it's the same case, because it's not. He or she just wanted it to be the same case so badly, that he or she leaped to that conclusion even though the two articles practically screamed out that it was not the same case.
>>>The ages do indeed fit, but how do you know it is the same case? It seems logical that this is the same case since the original article I posted stated there is no apparent precedence. If this case was already decided it would appear there indeed is precedence.>>>
That logic word you used. Exactly! If this case had been decided before (as Chiapet and AntiGuv would have us to believe that this case is a different case), then there WOULD be precedent. It is obvious that the Superior court got referred to the Supreme court, which is where the case is now. Not a lawyer, but I cannot see how it is not the same case. Plus the story (exact same divorce story even?!) and ages/timeline add up.