Here are a few cases I did not have time to write up but seemed either important or irritating enough to mention:
- How to Confront Binding Precedent Against You: Facing the immovable object of binding precedent against her, the appellant in Grizzell v. San Elijo Elementary School asked the 9th Circuit to revisit its precedent in an initial hearing en banc. It was denied, but the panel still teed up the issue for a decent chance at en banc review. (Via Cory Webster.)
- Racial Justice Act in the Jury Room: In the recent Racial Justice Act decision in People v. Wilson, the California Supreme Court evaluated a RJA claim that the jury was racist because during its deliberations one juror “referred to mitigating evidence of abuse and neglect in Wilson’s background as ‘ “cultural” ’ ” and argued “many children in Black families were raised under similar conditions and did not go on to commit murder”. The Court said that this was "a plausible RJA claim.”
- Kill Your Darlings: Appellate sanctions were imposed against counsel for filing briefs leveling accusations that the trial judge “put[] himself above the law,” acting in “outright defiance” of the law,” and issuing a ruling that amounts to “whimsical tyranny.” (Via Ben Shatz.) (Free advice: Instead of plumbing the depths of your Roget’s for your own brief, just say the trial court “prejudicially erred” and leave it at that.)
- NFL Avoids Jury with Directed Verdict: In a $14 billion antitrust case for overcharging on the NFL’s Sunday Ticket platform, Central District of California Judge Philip S. Gutierrez entered judgment as a matter of law for the NFL, ruling that the court had admitted improper opinion of plaintiffs’ expert. (Uninformed hot-take: Assuming the judge is correct that he admitted improper testimony, the remedy is new trial. That would give plaintiffs the opportunity to use a different approach to prove their case. But allowing plaintiffs to use the approach and then doing a switcheroo after the fact via JMOL is wrong.)
- Reductio ad arbitrium absurdum: Disney wants to kick a wrongful death lawsuit in Florida to arbitration. The basis: decedent’s widow once signed up for a free trial of Disney+ with an arbitration clause.
(Artwork by Randall Holbrook, RNDL.DESIGN.)
