Steve Emmert of Virginia Appellate News & Analysis blog fame was kind enough to provide me with this order (you can also click on these links for larger images of page 1 or page 2) from the case of Waggoner v. Wal Mart Stores, Inc. which aptly demonstrates the consequences of being so stubborn about mundane matters that the court is required step in, decide where your deposition will be held and humiliate both parties in the process.
Personally, I think that under these circumstances, Texarkana is an inspired choice
4 comments:
Don't flatter Steve Emmert by lettingt him think he is famous in any way, shape or form. Imfamous, perhaps. He needs a better sense of humor before he can achieve fame.
The fact that Steve sends me stuff like this would seem to indicate that his sense of humor might be almost as warped as mine. Some of the tongue-in-cheek editorial comments he makes when reviewing opinions from his state would also indicate that he is not entirely humorless.
I will defer to your apparently superior depth of knowledge regarding his infamy.
I actually enjoy Steve's witty comments. I claim no superior depth of knowledge as to his infamy but feel certain that he does not deny it. My initial post was just as tongue-in-cheek as many of his blog postings.
I too like the Texarkana solution.
I assumed as much. In my humble opinion, Steve is one of the best bloggers in this area. He strikes a nice balance between educating practitioners and even laymen about the law and appellate procedure and occasionally hinting that some opinions are less than models of clarity and scholarship.
More bloggers like him would keep more judges like me on our toes more often (sorry about that but I was on a roll).
Post a Comment