# length of legal opinions **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [October 20, 2003, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/length-of-legal-opinions/208574 "2003-10-20T20:46:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Rhum\_Runner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@Rhum\_Runner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhum_Runner)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2003, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/length-of-legal-opinions/208574/21 "2003-10-22T04:45:15Z")
1. What ugly coding, I apologize. 2. The cite to the Satan case is 54 F.R.D. 282 (W. D. Penn 1971); Westlaw is going to be wondering why that case is being accessed all of a sudden all across the country, or not. ---
**Author:** ![Dinsdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/97f17d/32.png) [@Dinsdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dinsdale)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2003, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/length-of-legal-opinions/208574/22 "2003-10-22T15:05:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by cmason32 \* > \*\*Posner is brilliant. \*\* Unfortunately, he seems to agree with this assessment as strongly as anyone. IME, he (and Easterbrook) are complete jerks towards attorneys during oral argument. As the joke goes, who are the 3 Dicks on the 7th Circuit? Dick Posner, Dick Cudahy, and Frank Easterbrook. ---
**Author:** ![aahala](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a88e4f/32.png) [@aahala](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aahala)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2003, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/length-of-legal-opinions/208574/23 "2003-10-22T15:19:14Z")
The reason legal opinions can be very long is the authors don’t have the time to make them short. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2003, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/length-of-legal-opinions/208574/24 "2003-10-23T03:34:03Z")
A well known Master of the Alberta Queen’s Bench, Master Funduk, recently retired. His decisions on procedural matters, which one would think would be quite dull, have been circulating amongst counsel for over twenty years because of their pointed wit. One of the most frequently cited bit of Fundukia is on the principle of _stare decisis_: > [@](#): > > I am bound by decisions of Queen’s Bench judges, by decisions of the Alberta Court of Appeal and by decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada. Very simply, Masters in Chambers of a superior trial court occupy the bottom rung of the superior court’s judicial ladder. I do not overrule decisions of a judge of this court. The judicial pecking order does not permit little peckers to over-rule big peckers. It is the other way around. ---
**Author:** ![cmason32](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@cmason32](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmason32)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2003, 9:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/length-of-legal-opinions/208574/25 "2003-11-05T09:14:39Z")
Here’s another funny line I found from one of my trademark cases: > [@](#): > > Unlikely indeed is the hapless Internet searcher who, unable to find information on the schedule of upcoming NASCAR broadcasts or “Dukes of Hazzard” reruns, decides to give up and purchase a computer network maintenance seminar instead. > > - _The Network Network v. CBS_, 54 USPQ2d 1150 (C.D. Cal. 2000) ---
**Author:** ![DaddyTimesTwo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f07891/32.png) [@DaddyTimesTwo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DaddyTimesTwo)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2003, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/length-of-legal-opinions/208574/26 "2003-12-23T17:40:37Z")
I dredging up this thread, **acsenray** , because I have a [cite](http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20031223/ap_on_re_ca/canada_marijuana_ruling) for you. It’s not quite the 1200 pages I used in my example, but I’ll simply say that was hyperbole. The complexity of the case would surely have some impact, but I can’t imagine the detail required to fill 400 pages. Anyway, there you go. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/length-of-legal-opinions/208574.md?page=1)