Monday, October 19, 2015
Same basic facts, different conclusion
Justice Hoffstadt's DJ article today takes as its theme how "Drawing different conclusions from the same basic facts makes for a fun optical illusion and brain teaser, but it is not good for the law." His topic is sentencing gang enhancements, and after posing the conflict between two lines of authority, he notes that the courts will have to reconcile them or choose between them.
Another good optical illusion appearing in California precedent is Wittgenstein's famous duck-rabbit in footnote 1 of Perry v. Robertson (1988) 201 Cal.App.3d 333, 355.
The Beverly Hills Bar Association will be honoring a "legend of the law" at its Sixth Annual Litigation Awards Dinner (Feb. 17, 2016 at the Montage in Beverly Hills): The Honorable Stephen Reinhardt will receive the Ronald M. George Award for Judicial Excellence.