Court Opinion

ID: 9721768
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 09:08:44.685268+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:28.587488
License: Public Domain

NEWSOM, J.
As to the appeal itself, I concur in the opinion of the majority because its construction of Code of Civil Procedure section 660 seems plausible and hence probably correct, although—given the cosmic incomprehensibility of the section—one can never be absolutely sure.
It occurs to me that section 660 illustrates poignantly the maxim so useful in statutory construction—that if the Legislature had known what it meant, it would have said so.
It seems to me shameful, however, that large sums of money should change hands depending upon one’s views of what this dismal, opaque statute means.
The petition of defendant and appellant for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied June 1, 1983. Mosk, J., and Kaus, J., were of the opinion that the petition should be granted.