Last week's
Pico Neighborhood v. Santa Monica opinion has gotten a lot of attention already for a variety of reasons. See e.g., Prof. Martin's lengthy post
here. But appellate hotshot Michael Colantuono points out a few appellatey notes:
 |
| Hat tip for spotting these! |
- There's a memorable quote about the surplusage canon at page 34 and a nice discussion of
forfeiture at page 37.
- And, on page 39, there's a discussion on the de novo review of historical evidence: “We do not defer to a
trial court’s reaction to historical artifacts like these, any more than we
would defer to a trial court’s ‘findings’ that A Room of One’s Own concerns
Napoleon in Russia or that Citizen Kane shows Druids built Stonehenge. News
articles, videos and other texts that were not created for litigation are
difference from wittiness in a courtroom testifying and being cross-examined
and under oath, and are not fit topics for trial court factfinding to which
appellate courts will defer.”
- Finally, on page 49, there's a bit on how one of the parties failed to address one of the points raised in the appellate court's tentative decision.
Posts
