Court Opinion

ID: 9551442
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:53:31.071424+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:23:50.980553
License: Public Domain

STEPHENS, P. J., Concurring.
I concur. In concurring I deem it proper to say that credit for those parts of the opinion that treat of our duty in the matter of statement of fact belongs wholly to Mr. Justice Crail.
Comment upon the subject is justified by the constant assumption in petitions for rehearing that it is our duty to include detailed recitation of facts in our opinions. A short, concise opinion upon the law points presented by the facts, it seems, is very popular except, in some instances, with the lawyer whose case has thus been handled. If lawyers would carefully read the opinion in People v. Davis, 147 Cal. 346 [81 Pac. 718], and the Supreme Court’s comment upon deny*642ing a hearing in Burke v. Maze, 10 Cal. App. 206, at page 211 [101 Pac. 438], many pages in appellate briefs and petitions for rehearings and hearings before the Supreme Court would be saved, for the uselessness of pages of facts in opinions is therein plainly indicated. In offering such free advice to attorneys I must confess that I harbor the thought that the authorities herein mentioned could as well be perused with profit, every now and then, by justices of reviewing courts.