Court Opinion

ID: 9718027
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:15:13.443592+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:56.853515
License: Public Domain

STRUTZ, Judge
(concurring specially).
I concur in the result reached by the majority, but I cannot agree with the long and wordy analysis of the many principles of law which I feel entirely unnecessary to a determination of this case. No possible good can come from the wordy discussion of the majority. It surely will result in confusing anyone who tries to read and apply the law which this decision sets out. We have held many times that this court will consider only the issues which must be passed upon in order to decide the case. After reading the long and needlessly detailed reasoning on the various points of law discussed, I concur wholeheartedly with comments made by Charles A. Beardsley when he wrote, in Volume 26, Journal of the American Judicature Society, page 41:
“But the judges don’t stop when they run out of their own words. They cause *733their typists to copy paragraph after paragraph, and sometimes page after page, of other judges’ words — all of which copied words the lawyers have already bought and paid for and stored on their book shelves.”
I concur in the result.