|
|
Post by hamster on Oct 4, 2021 16:40:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Oct 5, 2021 5:57:32 GMT -5
What a wordy opinion. By the 18th page I realized I was just skimming. And then it goes on for another 11 pages. To make it less wordy, she should have left off the final two words in the first paragraph: " . . . or not . . . . "
For the first 28 pages of analysis it could have gone either way for me. She finally got down to it on page 29 when she looked at the purpose of the remedial overtime law, and grounded the opinion on that. Finally! Thank you.
Pixie
|
|
|
|
Post by tom b on Oct 5, 2021 9:15:49 GMT -5
The joke in this case is on the litigants: The issue before the Court of Appeals was whether the District Court erred in granting partial summary judgment. This case went back to trial after the ambiguity in the statute was resolved. I suppose the substantive question at that point was whether the drivers actually did fall within the protection of the statute.
Neither Pixie nor Hamster commented on the writing style of the judge who authored the opinion, but I was struck by the number of conjunctions ("And," "But," "However") that the judge used to start sentences. That technique might make the opinion more readable (I guess the politically astute/correct among us would say "accessible"), but I'm not sure that is the sort of writing I like to see in a published opinion.
Whether one calls it the serial comma, the Oxford comma, or the Harvard comma, however, the real point is that the punctuation mark through its misuse or omission causes a lot of expensive mischief.
Respectfully, Tom B
|
|
