Key legal question
Whether the public law appeal was sufficiently reasoned under Art. 42 para. 2 LTF
Extracted holding
The appeal did not meet the minimum reasoning requirements because it merely repeated the arguments already submitted below and did not address the cantonal court's reasoning.
Extracted reasoning
An appellant must provide a targeted argument responding to the challenged judgment. Repetition of the prior submission without engaging with the lower court's reasoning is insufficient under Art. 42 para. 2 LTF.