Litigation
Cal. Litig. 2014, Volume 27 Number 1
Content
- Masthead
- Table of Contents
- From the Section Chair
- Hypotheticals on Litigational Plagiarism:
- Editor's Foreword Signing On: Big Shoes to Fill
- Another Amazing Year in the Supreme Court
- Officers of a Court Do Not Plagiarize
- Plagiarism: Naughty, Knotty
- Can Use of Administrative Procedures Expedite Complex State Court Civil Litigation?
- Can We Shorten This Trial?
- Statements of Decision: Errors, Omissions, and Solutions
- The Perils of Punishing Public Employees for Protected Speech: Applying Pickering v. Board of Education to Posts and Pins
- Adr Update: Can Post-Award Searches Vacate Arbitration Awards?
- Trial Lawyer Hall of Fame (2004): 62 Years in the Practice of Law
- "I Learned About Litigating from That" In Memory of Joel a. Cohen
- McDermott On Demand: Ozymandias?
- Litigation Section Executive Committee Past Chairs
- Past Editors-in-Chief
Statements of Decision: Errors, Omissions, and Solutions
By John Derrick
John Derrick
Somewhere in the labyrinths of the Judicial Council, a working party has been trying to reform the widely unpopular system of statements of decision. But the word on the judicial street is that the reform initiative has stalled. It’s not that there’s a lobby determined to protect the status quo. It’s that no one can agree on a better alternative.
But there is a simple solution, which has, to the best of my knowledge, been overlooked. Read on and you’ll find out what it is. First, however, a review of what’s wrong with the system now and how to avoid the most common pitfalls.