It isn't a good sign when an appeals court refers to a lower court's "ruling" in quotation marks as if it's not worthy of the term. But that's exactly what a California appeals court did -- three times -- in reversing a "ruling" by a trial judge in an overpapered case featuring 5,415 pages of briefs. The case, which involves "what may well be the most oppressive motion ever presented to a superior court," could be considered "the poster child" for criticism of the summary judgment process, Justice James Richman wrote.
October 13, 2009 at 12:00 AM
1 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.Com
It isn’t a good sign when an appeals court refers to a lower court’s “ruling” in quote marks as if it’s not worthy of the term.
But that’s exactly what San Francisco’s 1st District Court of Appeal did — three times — Friday in reversing a “ruling” by San Mateo County Superior Court Judge Marie Weiner in an overpapered case featuring 5,415 pages of briefs.
Presented by BigVoodoo
The premier educational and networking event for employee benefits brokers and agents.
The Legal Intelligencer honors lawyers leaving a mark on the legal community in Pennsylvania and Delaware.
Consulting Magazine recognizes leaders in technology across three categories Leadership, Client Service and Innovation.
Atlanta s John Marshall Law School is seeking to hire one or more full-time, visiting Legal WritingInstructors to teach Legal Research, Anal...
Shipman is seeking an associate to join our Labor & Employment practice in our Hartford, New Haven, or Stamford office. Candidates shou...
Evergreen Trading is a media investment firm headquartered in NYC. We help brands achieve their goals by leveraging their unwanted assets to...
MELICK & PORTER, LLP PROMOTES CONNECTICUT PARTNERS HOLLY ROGERS, STEVEN BANKS, and ALEXANDER AHRENS
