Wow.
For some reason, I've never before commented on an opinion by Justice Streeter. Or at least if I have, I've never mentioned him by name. He's been on the Court of Appeal for almost four years now, so I'm certain I've read some of his opinions. But for whatever reason, they've never stuck out to me -- or at least I never felt the need to call him out by name.
Today's opinion is different. It definitely stuck out to me.
Because it's absolutely brilliant.
It's about something (1) that's incredibly complicated, and (2) about which I know fairly well -- the preclusive effect of a federal judgment on subsequent state court litigation, particularly when (as here) the federal court either cannot or declines to exercise jurisdiction over part of the claim (e.g., supplemental state law claims). So I have a healthy respect for the subject matter, alongside high standards -- despite the indisputable difficulty of the task -- for any attempt to resolve the matter.
But Justice Streeter nails it.
It's not just that the opinion is a persuasive one. It's more than it's just such an incredibly smart opinion. Super smart. Brilliant, even. Cogent, in depth, sophisticated, nuanced. All these things. Everything you want in an opinion and more.
Sometimes -- rarely -- I see an opinion that I could never write in a million years. Because it displays talents -- in writing, in style, in other things -- that I know I do not possess and never will.
This is not one of those. Rather, this is precisely the type of opinion that I would always hope to write, even though the vast majority of times I would come short. Even if I tried my hardest. It's my style, and my mode of analysis, and precisely my type of sophistication. At least what I'd strive for. But Justice Streeter pulls it off in a way that puts most of my own efforts to shame.
An incredibly thoughtful, incredibly sophisticated, incredibly cogent opinion.
I'm profoundly jealous. No joke.
Absolutely wonderful to see.
