Today's DJ features a piece by Justice Hoffstadt, When is Enough Enough, that begins in Middle-Earth and proceeds to discuss when judges should "extend a line of precedent their court set in motion years ago" and perhaps "unleash a giant flying lizard"; or when "the benefit of doctrinal purity from adhering to the precedent outweighed by other, competing considerations?"
He concludes with a list of four questions (not necessarily suitable for seders):
1) Will extending the precedent lead to impracticalities?
2) Will extending the precedent clash with how people act (and react) in the real world?
3) Will extending the precedent impair the accuracy of verdicts?
4) Will extending the precedent make the law less predictable?
Too esoteric for a lazy summer day? Looking for some straight, technical appellate enjoyment? Then check out this unpub here, to help answer the question "Siri, do I really have to pay net interest expenses incurred in borrowing funds for an appeal bond based on a newly amended rule of court?" The author of this delightful appellate catnip? Ah, it's Justice Hoffstadt again, of course!
For published appellate-law fun see here, where 2/5 dismisses an appeal from a SLAPPback.
In the NLJ: D.C. Circuit Judge Irked by Agency's Briefs: "Judge Laurence Silberman of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit values clarity in legal briefs. On Tuesday, the famously acronym-averse judge again showed his willingness to shame lawyers who disappoint him."
See opinion & one-liner concurrence here: "SILBERMAN, Senior Circuit Judge, concurring: I wish FERC’s briefing was as clear as Judge Sentelle’s opinion."