Wednesday, November 24, 2010

Eklund v. City of Seattle Municipal Court (9th Cir. - Nov. 24, 2010)

Twenty-five (!) single-spaced pages of facts.  Four pages of analysis.  Not exactly the way I'd write an opinion.  Particularly when sixteen of the fact pages simply type, verbatim, various letters back and forth between the parties.  Which are interesting, to be sure, and relevant.  But we can shorthand these.  Not necessary to kill lots of trees.

Which -- and maybe I'm being presumptuous here -- is perhaps why Judge Canby writes a one-sentence concurrence in which he says (in toto):  "I agree with the analysis set forth in Judge Noonan's opinion, and I concur in the judgment."  In other words, the four pages are fine, and can we please shorten the rest?

As for the result, though, I agree.  The jury got this one wrong.  You could perhaps have had a better procedure, but there's no constitutional violation here, and plaintiff definitely (in my mind) got what he deserved for fixing his own tickets.  Indeed, probably should have gotten more.

Not a good Day Before Thanksgiving for Bruce Eklund, who sees his almost half-million dollar judgment go away.  But a correct result.