
Here are a few cases I did not have time to write up but seemed either important or irritating enough to mention:
Don't put a 1542 in your 998: Offer was invalid because it requested not only dismissal but a broader release of all claims, known and unknown. That made the 998 invalid. *T&R PAINTING AND DRYWALL, v. TOWN BUILDING & DEVELOPMENT,* (D2d6, June 17, 2025, No. 2D CIV. B330375) (non-pub. opn.)
Doctor’s ‘Dear Diary’ entry (seized by warrant) described his patient as a “F**KING PSYCHO DRUGGIE” who “see[s] me as a legal drug dealer.” Diary had enough relevant entries to be subject to seizure. Result: 30 months’ prison. United States v. Keller (9th Cir., June 27, 2025, No. 23-656)
Orally settling a derivative claim? Remember to get it judicially approved. This one wasn't. Hence the remand. (But it will certainly result in approval and thus the same result, so the purpose of this appeal was ¯\(ツ)/¯ Norman v. Strateman (D5d3, June 20, 2025, No. A170356)
Under the Racial Justice Act, Batson/Wheeler errors are per se reversible. But Supreme Court says errors in racial questioning were reviewed for harmless error (and found harmless). Suggesting the Court might be leaning Justice Yegan’s way on this (i.e., RJA errors are not per se reversible)? People v. Barrett (Cal., June 23, 2025, No. S124131)
(Artwork by Randall Holbrook, RNDL.DESIGN.)