Sometimes the topic of the opinion itself tells you where the court's likely to come out.
For example, figure out how you think this opening paragraph ends:
"On May 28, 2010 the trial court declared Randall Pittman a
vexatious litigant and prohibited him, pursuant to Code of Civil
Procedure section 391.7, from filing in propria persona any new
litigation in the courts of this state without first obtaining leave
of the presiding judge or justice of the court where the litigation
is proposed to be filed. Over the past seven years Pittman has
made several attempts to have that order stricken, reconsidered,
vacated or overturned. This appeal is from the trial court’s most
recent denial of Pittman’s motion to vacate the order declaring
him a vexatious litigant."
The next line reads: "We _________."
Do you think the Court of Appeal fills in the blank with "affirm" or "reverse?"
Yep. You got it right.
Oh, and if you need another hint -- not that you do, since you already know the answer -- here's another part of the opinion that might help you figure out where this one's headed:
"Siemens further argued Pittman repeatedly engaged in
harassing and unnecessary tactics. For example, during three of
his previous lawsuits against Siemens, Pittman had filed
five motions to disqualify the presiding judges. Each motion was
denied. Siemens stated Pittman sent “harassing and
intimidating” emails to opposing counsel, one of which included
“an extended diatribe about 9/11, the war in Iraq, pharmaceutical
companies, and the inequities of the criminal justice system,”
while in another, Pittman stated, “[L]et them know that that was
only one battle because the war will end in the courtroom and
that is where I must die.”"
Probably not the greatest strategy on Pittman's part.
Bravo, in contrast, by the respondents in this appeal. Who don't even show up. They let the Court of Appeal figure this one out on its own.
Right call. By everyone involved. (Except, of course, Mr. Pittman.)
