In this state, lawyers stand in front of three-judge panels of the courts of appeals to orally present their legal arguments about why the trial court was right or wrong in its decision. Long beforehand, the lawyers have submitted written explanations to the court. These things are the legal briefs you hear and read about; and most times, they are often not very brief.
Yesterday, I appeared before a court of appeals to argue why the trial court decision was correct. An oral argument in another case was set at the same time, but was set to go first; so, I was able to sit back and listen to the 15-minute presentations by each side.
With the lawyer who lost in the trial court going first, my interest was piqued, not by the subject of the case, but by his use of language, so much so that I pulled out my pen and Levenger 3x5 cards and started to make notes.
Here are quotes:
This case is very unique.
The situation in the case was very unique.
This is a very unique nuisance.
This is a very unique case.
We have a very unique nuisance in this case.
This case is very unique in that this court has not seen a nuisance like this before.
And while he was clicking his ball point pen, he so eruditely made his final point: This case is so unique because the facts are so unique.
Posted by Bill at October 18, 2007 01:12 PMYou had me at "Levenger 3x5 cards".
Posted by: lucy at October 18, 2007 07:00 PMWas he a Eunique?
Posted by: Joel at October 19, 2007 02:06 AMHow unique.
Posted by: Anji at October 19, 2007 10:10 AMthere are judges in CA who are so opposed to the penclicking that bailiffs actually pass out clickless pens before court is in session. As for the exceptionally unique quality of the uniquitude of the instant case's uniqueness, I refer you to Unique v Uni-que, which provides us this dictum: It's all unique till someone else does it.
Posted by: dan at October 19, 2007 08:20 PM