Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Federal Judiciary Blogs -> California Appellate Report

Federal Judiciary

: California Appellate Report

Patel v. Liebermensch (Cal. Supreme Ct. - Dec. 22, 2008)

By Shaun Martin

Back in August 2007, the Court of Appeal down here in San Diego issued an opinion in a fact-specific contract case written by Justice Huffman over the very strong dissent of Justice McIntyre. The question was basically whether this particular contract was specific enough to enforce, with the majority thinking it wasn't and the dissent thinking it was.br /br /Later that same day, I mentioned both the massive USD Law School connections of the participants, a href="http://calapp.blogspot.com/2007/08/patel-v-liebermensch-cal-ct-app-aug-21.html"as well as the fact that I agreed with Justice McIntyre's dissent/a. Though noted that my opinion "with $3.50, will get you a cup of coffee at a href="http://www.starbucks.com/"Starbucks/a."br /br /But while my opinion may not matter much, the California Supreme Court's does. And, today, a href="http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S156797.PDF"it unanimously agreed with Justice McIntyre (and me)/a. In nine-page (double-spaced) opinion remarkable for its brevity. As if to say "Sorry, Justice Huffman, but this one's pretty easy. Those other guys got it right."br /br /Somes, in extreme cases, the California Supreme Court will indeed get in the error-correcting business. This is one of those cases, IMHO. And I'd have done the same.

Full post as published by California Appellate Report on December 22, 2008 (boomark / email).