Terribly sad news this morning from a CD Cal press release:
Today's DJ presents No Wasted Space: Justice William Bedsworth is know for his eloquent, witty writing and mastery of the law, which begins: "A veteran of thousands of opinions and countless
more jokes, William W. Bedsworth can point with ease to the case that brings
him the most pride, and it has nothing to do with the sense of humor that
defines him to so many attorneys nationwide." (That case is People v. Garcia (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1269 [sexual orientation is a protected class].)
Today is a "Columbus Day" (or, depending on your location, a holiday of some sort, e.g., Indigenous Peoples Day in L.A.) so State and Federal courts are closed for the holiday.| No holidays for robots. |
As for enjoying today's holiday, how about reading Beds' latest column The Steel Cage Mud Run, exposing the sartorial traditions of 4/3 and why oral argument is tough on the judges (even when the panel loos like "seagulls on a pier").Seven things are in a clod, and seven in a wise man. The wise man speaks not before one who is greater than he in wisdom; and does not interrupt the words of his companion; and is not hasty to reply; he asks according to canon, and answers to the point; and speaks on the first thing first, and on the last last; of what he has not heard he says, "I have not heard"; and he acknowledges the truth. And their opposites are in the clod.
Videos from 2017 Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference Program Now Available
Today's DJ reports Recently retired appellate justice joins JAMS in LA: Following his retirement from the 2nd District Court of Appeal, Richard D. Aldrich has joined the JAMS Resolution Center.So why not use this approach with Supreme Court and Court of Appeal opinions? It might take a little more time to draft multiple endings. And I suppose the endings would have to have a reasonable relation to the facts and law that precede them. The rule I usually follow is that the ending naturally falls into place by what precedes it. But I doubt hackers would be the type of people who read what precedes the ending that closely. In fact, does anybody, except maybe an annoying law professor? When I was a trial judge and received an opinion from the Court of Appeal on one of my cases, I always read the last page first. But due to a startling experience, I stopped doing that. I recall reading the last page of such an opinion and seeing that heartbreaking word “reversed.” I was crestfallen until I realized I had read the last page of the dissent.And Moskovitz on Appeals presents 'Realist' or 'Formalist': Part I, about Judge Richard Posner:
The key to winning appeals is to get into the minds of appellate judges. This is quite difficult, in part because judges don’t say much about how they think about cases. Many “just do it” without much introspection. Others have some idea about what they do, but don’t want to talk about it. And many think they are doing one thing but are actually doing another. Reading their opinions helps, but not as much as you might suppose, because opinions are often written largely by research assistants. I learn how judges think mostly by inference and intuition: experience handling cases, talking to judges, watching them during oral argument — and by serving as a “judge” myself, during moot courts ... .
Posner is a breath of fresh air. He actually thinks about how he thinks. And about how other judges think. And then he writes about it, extensively and candidly. I’ve pored over his book “Reflections On Judging” for hours. Posner notes that “Lawyers find it difficult to get inside the head of an appellate judge,” and his book provides a peek into at least one judge’s thinking.The October issue of OC Lawyer is also out, and that means more Beds! This time in Baseball for Trappists, in which he explains how he can watch an Angels game and do his day job at the same time: "I can read a full six pages of argument, two of the cases relied upon to support that argument, and double-check the language of the statute, and all I’ve missed is four foul balls, a visit to the mound, and an instant replay review."
Materials for yesterday's Ninth Circuit Appellate Advocacy Program (in Billings, MT) are available here. Future programs will be held on Oct. 10 (in Spokane) and Oct. 12 (in Boise).Relatedly, today's DJ features Charlie Bird in Testing Extension Statutes in the Age of PACER, about Hamer v. Neighborhood Housing Services of Chicago, this SCOTUS term's hot appellate procedural case.A Florida law firm’s failure to appeal an order assessing attorney fees doesn’t constitute excusable neglect when its email system apparently perceived the order to be spam and erased it, a Florida appeals court has ruled.
The Aug. 10 decision by Florida’s First District Court of Appeal is being touted as a cautionary tale for lawyers, Law.com (sub. req.) reports.
Hamer and amicus curiae the American Academy of Appellate Lawyers argue that the rule is a mandatory claim processing rule. The core of the argument is that only Congress can grant or deny appellate jurisdiction. Because 28 U.S.C. Section 2107(c) enacts no limit on the time a district judge can allow for an extension, the court of appeals has indestructible jurisdiction over an appeal filed within the time specified in an order issued under that statute.
Posts
All Comments
