Posted by Eugene Volokh:
A Troubling Passage
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_05_20-2007_05_26.shtml#1179874356
from Bull v. U.S. Congress, 2007 WL 1462213 (D.S.C. May 16, 2007):
The first three quarters of the plaintiff's brief (Entry No. 1-5)
are characterized by what some courts have described as �buzzwords�
or �gibberish.� See Coghlan v. Starkey, 852 F.2d 806, 812-816 (5th
Cir.1988)(collecting cases); Ramos v. Thornburg, 732 F.Supp. 696,
702 (E.D.Texas 1989); Stafford v. Ellis, 1992 U.S.Dist. LEXIS®
12007 (D.Colo.1992); FN10 Yocum v. Summers, 1991 U.S.Dist. LEXIS®
12091, 1991 WESTLAW® 171389 (N.D.Ill.1991); McCutcheon v. New York
Stock Exchange, 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS® 8141, 1989 WESTLAW® 82007
(N.D.Ill., July 10, 1989); Peebles v. National Collegiate Athletic
Association, 1988 U.S.Dist. LEXIS® 17247 (D.S.C., November 1,
1988)(magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation) ....
Not for the substance -- for those awful registered trademark symbols.
Fortunately, it doesn't look like WESTLAW is adding the symbols
itself; a quick search suggests that only a few recent cases include
them, so presumably it's the judge's decision.
And it's not a good decision, I think: It needlessly draws the
reader's attention to something that's as far from the substance of
the case as possible. Nor is there any legal requirement to use these
symbols in writing opinions, briefs, law review articles, and the
like. Why would the court do such a thing?
_______________________________________________
Volokh mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.powerblogs.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh
