advice you can use — short and to the point — every Tuesday, Wednesday & Thursday

Wednesday, June 30th, 2021 technology  research  practice

A Research Tip

  • Research & Writing

I think’s how the kids would express what happened to a California judge.

A better way to describe it might be ‘an embarrassing example of assuming the junior person who’s working for you will have done the proofreading in the first place, and that you don’t need to check things yourself.’

In Golo LLC v Higher Health Networks LLC (SD Calif, case number 3:18-cv-2434-GPC-MSB, 5 February 2019), Curiel USDJ sets out the standard of proof required for the claims being advanced.

At the end of one paragraph, this comment appears in parenthesis: meh I need a better rule statement than this.

The comment is perhaps that of the judge in mid-edit, but more probably that of the hapless judicial clerk who actually wrote the opinion – in which case, evidence of two proofreading failures. (And one of authorship.)

Simpsons fans will be happy, though.

Neil Guthrie (@guthrieneil)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *