Court Opinion

ID: 9505433
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 20:04:45.986327+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:04:27.950473
License: Public Domain

BOEHM, J.,
dissents with separate opinion.
SULLIVAN, J.,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. When the respondent here said that “one is left to wonder whether the Court of Appeals was determined to find for Appellee ... and then said whatever was necessary to reach that conclusion (regardless of whether the facts or the law supported that conclusion),” the respondent made a statement of “rhetorical hyperbole,” incapable of being proved true or false. The First Amendment provides lawyers who use such hyperbole concerning the qualifications or integrity of the judge protection from sanction. See Standing Comm, on Discipline of the United States Dist. Court v. Yagman, 55 F.3d 1430, 1438, 1441 (9th Cir.1995). While there is much debate as to how far this protection extends, I agree with Justice Boehm that it extends at least as far as the statement made by respondent here.
BOEHM, J., concurs.