Monday's DJ featured Justice Hoffstadt's article,
Then Again, Maybe Not, and when high courts don't actually answer the question everyone thought they would. He posits four scenarios: (1) The court shouldn't have granted review in the first place; (2) the court answers a different question than the one presented; (3) the court decides only part of the question presented; and (4) the court decides the question presented in a way markedly different than the litigants and court-watchers might have expected.
Today's DJ features an article by H&L's Jessica Di Palma titled
Review Influential Appellate Decisions From This Year, pointing to six notable decisions this year:
Hartford Cas. Ins. Co. v. J.R. Mktg., L.L.C., 61 Cal. 4th 988
(2015);
In re Estate of Duke, 61 Cal. 4th 871 (2015);
In re Marriage of Davis, 61 Cal. 4th 846 (2015);
People v. Superior Court (Johnson), 61 Cal. 4th 696 (2015);
Aghaian v. Minassian,
234 Cal. App. 4th 427 (2015); and Noe v. Superior Court,
237 Cal. App. 4th 316 (2015).
Also worth pointing out is this zinger of a footnote from Beds, J., recently in Harkey v. Wyland, G050197, Dec. 8, 2015, p. 3, fn. 2:
“Anti-SLAPP
motions are so common now that explaining the acronym at this late date feels
almost zombie-like. On the off-chance there are any readers who don’t already
know, though, SLAPP stands for ‘strategic lawsuit against public
participation,’ the idea being that a defendant has been sued for an exercise
of free speech. A SLAPP suit is a bad thing.”
Speaking of Beds, J., here's his latest column:
A Criminal Waste of Space: A Zamboni and a Bad Choice
Posts
