Justice Marla Miller named to Ethics Committee

Appellate Justice Marla Miller Named to Supreme Court Ethics Committee: Justice Miller, of the First District Court of Appeal, to fill vacancy on the Supreme Court Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions.

Justice Miller, of the First District Court of Appeal, Division Two (San Francisco), was appointed for the balance of the term to be vacated by Justice Maria P. Rivera, who announced her resignation from CJEO effective December 31. Justice Rivera, a founding member of CJEO who served for seven years, also announced her retirement as an Associate Justice of the First District Court of Appeal, Division Four. Justice Miller’s CJEO appointment is effective January 1, 2018, through December 31, 2018.
=====================================
SCAN readers know that we sometimes highlight first-lines or openings to decisions, but for an interesting, poetic and philosophical conclusion, see this case here:

The complexities of this case, as we have said in another context, “ ‘would bring tears to the eyes of a brass monkey.’ ” (Schellinger Brothers v. Cotter (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 984, 988.)
....
Appellate courts also strive to be right. We don’t want to err any more than a trial court does. Our obligations to the parties demand this as does our institutional role as a reviewing court that decides questions of law. That is another reason appropriate legal briefing from the parties is so essential. So, when a case appears to raise complicated legal issues that haven’t been adequately briefed, we sometimes request supplemental briefing with the hope the parties will assist the court to root through the chaff, and arrive at the legally correct result. Here, though, that approach has proved unhelpful.

In this case, we requested several rounds of supplemental briefing on a number of points, which generated a significant number of new arguments and potential issues. Suffice it to say, the supplemental briefing by and large raised more complexities and questions than it supplied answers.

Every appeal must come to an end. In fairness to other litigants whose appeals are waiting to be heard and decided, and cognizant of the institutional necessity of doing our job unconstrained by any appearance of favoring any party, we are refraining from requesting any further supplemental briefing. There are too many unanswered questions on this record and on the state of the present briefing, for us to devote further judicial resources to staunch the flow of tears from this particular brass monkey’s eyes.