Law Religion Culture Review

Exploring the intersections of law, religion and culture. Copyright by Richard J. Radcliffe. All rights reserved.

Friday, November 03, 2006

Hubris is Dangerous, Part II.

Last September, I wrote about a real estate trial I won here:

This week, the Court of Appeal rendered its decision on the other side's appeal of the judgment I obtained. The result: 3-0 affirmed.

The appellate panel was not amused. Here are some of the greatest hits from the opinion:

"In challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, defendants are required to set out all material evidence, even that which is unfavorable, or the claim is waived. [citations omitted.] Defendants have not done so here. There is no section devoted to setting out the facts; purported facts are sprinkled thoughout the brief. Further, defendants failed to set out any evidence introduced by plaintiff that suports the juidgment. They recite only those facts favorable to their position.
Plaintiff, on the other hand, points to evidence supporting the judgment."

Also: "[D]efendants advance straw person claims, such as whether the action is barred by the statute of frauds, merely to knock them down. Although litigated at trial, these are not relevant to the issues on appeal.... [D]efendants fail to properly brief certain arguments....To the extent defendants make other assertions that are not properly briefed, they are also waived."

And, my favorite:

"Contrary to the claim of defendants' counsel at oral argument, the judgment did not incorporate a statement of decision. Defendants purport to set out 'factual findings', but there are no such findings in the record." (Emphasis supplied.)

What made this win even more gratifiying is that I had pointed out these deficiencies in my respondent's brief, which the opinion seemed to incorporate virtually wholesale.

I had an inkling at oral argument on October 20th that I was going to win again when one of the justices asked my opponent, "How can we not affirm?"

How can we not indeed.