Some judges are crooked. Others are idiots. And some ignore or distort the facts and applicable law to reach results to their liking. So writes commentator Howard J. Bashman, who adds that, no matter how much an appellate litigator may dislike a particular court decision, the wise course of action in challenging the ruling is to focus on the dispute's merits, not on the trial judge's personal character, motivations or qualifications.
January 29, 2007 at 12:00 AM
1 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Related: Bashman Archive
Some judges are crooked. Others are idiots. And some ignore or distort the facts and applicable law to reach results more to their liking than the facts and law, honestly portrayed, would allow.
Presented by BigVoodoo
This conference aims to help insurers and litigators better manage complex claims and litigation.
Recognizing innovation in the legal technology sector for working on precedent-setting, game-changing projects and initiatives.
Legalweek New York explores Business and Regulatory Trends, Technology and Talent drivers impacting law firms.
Search for the President and Dean California Western School of Law San Diego, California California Western School of Law (California ...
Duane Morris LLP has an opening for an associate with 2-3 years of experience with strong capital markets and corporate transactional backgr...
Our client, an established provider of professional liability insurance, has engaged us to identify a highly-qualified Senior Bad Faith Tria...
