Comments on: Case Update http://briefcase8.com/2009/07/06/case-update-98/ Case analysis with an attitude Thu, 09 Feb 2012 12:49:27 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Russ Bensing http://briefcase8.com/2009/07/06/case-update-98/comment-page-1/#comment-60705 Russ Bensing Mon, 06 Jul 2009 18:33:47 +0000 http://briefcase8.com/?p=1762#comment-60705 At this point, I'm reserving judgment on Sotomayor, but your criticism of her is invalid. "Reversible error" is not a separate standard of review, but the result of applying the appropriate standard of review. See, e.g., US v. Powers, 500 F3d 500 (2007) ("regardless of the standard of review employed, the Court did not commit reversible error..."). In other words, if the court had applied the de novo standard and had determined that the trial court didn't err in granting summary judgment, it would be perfectly appropriate, especially in a summary opinion, to say simply that the trial court had not committed reversible error. You may have a number of axes to grind with Judge Sotomayor, but this isn't your sharpest one. At this point, I’m reserving judgment on Sotomayor, but your criticism of her is invalid. “Reversible error” is not a separate standard of review, but the result of applying the appropriate standard of review. See, e.g., US v. Powers, 500 F3d 500 (2007) (“regardless of the standard of review employed, the Court did not commit reversible error…”). In other words, if the court had applied the de novo standard and had determined that the trial court didn’t err in granting summary judgment, it would be perfectly appropriate, especially in a summary opinion, to say simply that the trial court had not committed reversible error.

You may have a number of axes to grind with Judge Sotomayor, but this isn’t your sharpest one.

]]> By: scott huminski http://briefcase8.com/2009/07/06/case-update-98/comment-page-1/#comment-60700 scott huminski Mon, 06 Jul 2009 15:50:31 +0000 http://briefcase8.com/?p=1762#comment-60700 SOTOMAYOR IGNORANT OF THE LAW Sotomayor flunks on getting the most basic principle of appellate law wrong – the Standard of Review. In Huminski v. Haverkoch, 11/5/04, 03-7036 2d. Cir., Sotomayor reveals an ignorance of the law by failing to apply the correct standard of review to an important civil rights case. She found appellate review was for reversible error when the correct standard of review for such a case (summary judgment) is De Novo. A simple google on, “standard of review for summary judgment de novo” supplies tens of authorities on the issue. I guess Sotomayor would rather be wrong than google on such a rudimentary issue. She also could have assigned her flock of law clerks to research the issue. Further, on a motion for rehearing specifically pointing out her error she did not act and correct it. Here is the link to the Sotomayor summary order from this case in which she presided over. http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/cb42154f-30e6-47ee-ae7c-d8e4c3acc2e5/1/doc/03-7036_so.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/cb42154f-30e6-47ee-ae7c-d8e4c3acc2e5/1/hilite/ See also, http://www.judgewatch.org/web-pages/cja-members-efforts/huminski-scott.htm Where the order states “For the Court”, it refers to Sotomayor and the 2 other judges on the case. See a different case of mine, Huminski v. Corsones, No. 02-6201 (2d Cir. 10/07/2004) (“We review a district court's grant or denial of summary judgment de novo.”) Empathy, not much empathy for this wrongly convicted and incarcerated citizen, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/nyregion/10dna.html?_r=1&emc=eta1 It appears she gave this imprisoned man the same bogus one page opinion that I got. -- Scott Huminski (202) 239-1252 SOTOMAYOR IGNORANT OF THE LAW

Sotomayor flunks on getting the most basic principle of appellate law wrong – the Standard of Review.

In Huminski v. Haverkoch, 11/5/04, 03-7036 2d. Cir., Sotomayor reveals an ignorance of the law by failing to apply the correct standard of review to an important civil rights case. She found appellate review was for reversible error when the correct standard of review for such a case (summary judgment) is De Novo.

A simple google on, “standard of review for summary judgment de novo” supplies tens of authorities on the issue. I guess Sotomayor would rather be wrong than google on such a rudimentary issue. She also could have assigned her flock of law clerks to research the issue. Further, on a motion for rehearing specifically pointing out her error she did not act and correct it.

Here is the link to the Sotomayor summary order from this case in which she presided over.

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/cb42154f-30e6-47ee-ae7c-d8e4c3acc2e5/1/doc/03-7036_so.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/cb42154f-30e6-47ee-ae7c-d8e4c3acc2e5/1/hilite/

See also,
http://www.judgewatch.org/web-pages/cja-members-efforts/huminski-scott.htm

Where the order states “For the Court”, it refers to Sotomayor and the 2 other judges on the case.

See a different case of mine, Huminski v. Corsones, No. 02-6201 (2d Cir. 10/07/2004) (“We review a district court’s grant or denial of summary judgment de novo.”)

Empathy, not much empathy for this wrongly convicted and incarcerated citizen,
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/nyregion/10dna.html?_r=1&emc=eta1
It appears she gave this imprisoned man the same bogus one page opinion that I got.

– Scott Huminski
(202) 239-1252

]]>