View Single Post
  #19  
Old 07 June 2018, 05:54 AM
Esprise Me's Avatar
Esprise Me Esprise Me is offline
 
Join Date: 02 October 2005
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 6,888
Default

Today my new supervisor emailed me, our new boss, and another senior attorney to confirm that a particular case was still controlling and to confirm her understanding of it. The other senior attorney and our new boss both agreed on a straightforward interpretation that was not favorable to our clients. I noted a particular fact in the case that I thought might be a basis to distinguish it from most of the similar cases we deal with. Our new boss didn't agree that this fact was significant, but my new supervisor liked my take on it. She used to be our writ attorney, and she once took up a writ on a case I had tried and lost but really believed in, where some might not have bothered because it was a close call (and those appellate justices can be really mean if they feel you're wasting their time.) So I like her, and appreciate her creativity and chutzpah.

Anyway, I had some free time and decided to review the unpublished opinions citing that case. I found exactly what I was looking for--a case in which that fact was absent, where the court explicitly reached the opposite conclusion and distinguished the published case on the basis of that fact! It was even a case from our own second district--originally out of LA county--so it would've been controlling if only it were published. But anyway, the court of appeal read the published case the same way I did, so I'm feeling awfully smug.
Reply With Quote