Monday, January 04, 2010

Annoying judge tricks # 4

(4) Issuing a "revision" of a 68-page opinion without including any statement of just what, actually, is being revised, so that one must collate the two versions to discover what changed.

Since the present example is the Paul Minor case, TBA is hoping someone else will do this. But there's no need. A footnote could be added to explain just what the revisions are.

No comments:

Post a Comment