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

Federal Judiciary

: California Appellate Report

In Re Carl N. (Cal. Ct. App. - March 12, 2008)

By Shaun Martin

"Dude, I hear you about footnote 3. But mellow out. We already changed that one, man."

That's myspeak. Justice Huffman puts it more elegantly: "The Attorney General's March 6, 2008 request for modification of the opinion filed herein on February 25, 2008, as to footnotes 1 and 3, is denied as moot with respect to footnote 3 because this court has already revised that footnote on its own motion."

Notice, by the way, how Justice Huffman puts in that the AG's request for modification was filed on March 6th. Since that was the same day as the Court of Appeal's sua sponte revision.

That's a different kind of "race to the courthouse."

P.S. - Can I tell you how annoying it is that even the docket sheet in juvenile cases is confidential? I mean, I understand that the name of the juvenile and the like are properly kept secret. But what day the briefs were filed? And the names of the attorneys -- which are listed in any published opinion anyway? Come on. I think we should be able to take a look at at least a limited docket sheet. But what do I know?

Full post as published by California Appellate Report on March 12, 2008 (boomark / email).