Now that’s concise
Matt Conigliaro asks whether this is the shortest opinion ever released. I think it may be. (Note that by going with a verb instead of a participle, the court shaved two letters off the length.)
« A good way to impress people at parties. Not. |
Main
| When “may” means “shall” “may only” »
Matt Conigliaro asks whether this is the shortest opinion ever released. I think it may be. (Note that by going with a verb instead of a participle, the court shaved two letters off the length.)
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451d9ec69e200d835223b7369e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Now that’s concise:
This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.
Yeah, but, "An case of original jurisdiction" ???
Posted by: Alfonso Bedoya | 15 March 2007 at 12:39 AM
My guess is the court quoted verbatim the caption of the plaintiff’s pleading.
Posted by: Ray Ward | 15 March 2007 at 07:56 AM
I only wish Con law cases could be this short....
Posted by: Brett | 16 March 2007 at 09:02 AM