I can summarize the central point of this opinion by Justice Menetrez without even mentioning the subject matter of the underlying dispute:
"We've told you before in other opinions that the law is X, but notwithstanding that fact, lawyers often keep telling us on appeal that the law is Y, and even some of our colleagues occasionally make the same mistake in published opinions. To be clear: The law is X, not Y. The only time the law is Y in when Z occurs, and yet people keep constantly saying that the law is Y in non-Z settings. To reiterate: The law is X, unless there's Z. So we're going to publish this one as well to make that crystal clear. Yet again."
(It's a dependency case, if you really want to know.)
Seems like an opinion worthy of publication to me. Sometimes people just gotta be reminded.
