Justice Moore has Barditis

In this published opinion here, 4/3's Justice Moore begins her opinion thusly:

Sour Grapes is a documentary
about "Rudy Kruniawan"

     “O thou invisible spirit of wine, if thou hast no name to be known by, let us call thee devil!” (Shakespeare, Othello, act II, scene 3.)
     Yea verily, we are presented with a most unfortunate tale of a villainous wine dealer who sold millions of dollars’ worth of counterfeit wine to an unsuspecting wine collector. When the wine collector discovered the fraud, he filed an insurance claim based on his “Valuable Possessions” property insurance policy. The insurance company denied the claim. The wine collector sued for breach of contract. The trial court ruled in favor of the insurance company, sustaining its demurrer.
     We agreeth with the trial court; the wine collector suffered a financial loss, but there was no loss to property that was covered by the property insurance policy. In other words, the wine collector is stuck with the devil wine without recompense. A Shakespearean tragedy, to be sure.

And concludes thusly:

     Finally, we can merely offereth to [Plaintiff/Appellant] this small piece of wisdom from the Bard of Avon: “The robbed that smiles steals something from the thief.” (Shakespeare, Othello, act I, scene 3.)

Given Justice Cuellar's opinion noted on At the Lectern, Barditis must be going around lately...

[Law360 has Bards of the Bench Pen Spirited Ruling in $18M Wine Row and the DJ has Appellate Court: Devil's Wine Not Covered by Insurance. And see here.]

In other literary news, see The Recorder's On Appeals: The Appellate Tiger's Tail for a pun-filled safari about the substantial evidence rule.