Wednesday, July 29, 2015

Musings on the latest Bluebook + movie night

Image result for the bluebook 20th editionTime to get a new Bluebook! The Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation is now in its 20th edition. To find out why California style is like English style, see The Bluebook's 20th edition prompts many musings from Bryan Garner in the ABA Journal online. Here's a taste:
What I’ve come to realize is that when it comes to The Bluebook, small changes are made for the sake of making small changes. New law students want their predecessors’ work to look obsolete. It’s the theory first elaborated by the social philosopher Thorstein Veblen: planned obsolescence. Veblen postulated that companies deliberately produce consumer goods that will become outdated after limited use so that consumers will have to buy new items more often.
You see the principle at work with smartphone chargers (your old ones won’t work on your new gear), iPod connections (ditto), lightbulbs and even coursebooks. Legal publishers like frequent editions so as to avoid the forgone profits represented by a secondhand market.

Image result for tim's vermeerAlso in the ABA Journal online today is another article about Judge Kozinski's movie night: Judge's movie night brings the court and the public closer together. The next KFF movie night is Monday, August 3, for a showing of the 'riveting documentary,'Tim's Vermeer (narrated by Penn Jillette and directed by Teller!). Special guest will be Tim Jenison himself!

  • In other news, the MetNews offers Court of Appeal Looks Favorably on Judge Ryan’s Rulings: Jurist Is Affirmed Six Times in Two Days
  • Here's a line (from page 1 of this unpub) you don't see everyday: "Obviously, we reverse. The trial court lacks jurisdiction to modify a judgment we affirmed."
  • And, re appellate sanctions, this unpub is interesting: "Gary’s appeal clearly lacks merit. Were he an attorney, we might be more inclined to award sanctions. But although he was represented by counsel in the trial court, Gary appears in propria persona in this court. “We do not believe it is appropriate to hold a propria persona appellant to the standard of what a ‘reasonably attorney’ should know is frivolous unless and until that appellant becomes a persistent litigant.” (Kabbe v. Miller (1990) 226 Cal.App.3d 93, 98.)"