Desert Mountain Properties v. Liberty Mutual (5/12/11)

We blogged the Court of Appeals’ opinion here. The Supreme Court has taken pity on bloggers by writing an opinion that says, after setting forth the issues and its jurisdiction: “After considering the briefs and oral arguments, the Court affirms the opinion of the court of appeals on these issues for the reasons set forth therein.” Problem is, that’s the wrong way to do things.

If the issue isn’t worth your time, why accept review? If you do and only then discover that there’s no point, why not deny it as improvidently granted? Why put everyone through the labor that results in a Supreme Court opinion and then bring forth a mouse? If you want to signal that the Court approves of the lower court’s opinion, then – especially when it was as unsatisfactory and badly-written as this one was – surely you do so in your own words.

This announces that the Court had no interest in doing anything other than pleasing, by giving an opinion they like a Supreme Court address, the usual suspects wheeled out to sign a Trial Lawyers amicus brief. If the Court intended some more worthy announcement, it should have made it.

(link to opinion)