June 23, 2005

De minimis!

Justice Kennedy misspelled de minimis (in Kelo, the new Takings Clause case).
This taking occurred in the context of a comprehensive development plan meant to address a serious city-wide depression, and the projected economic benefits of the project cannot be characterized as de minimus.
Man, you would think with all those hardcore law review types helping him out, he'd never fall into the most obvious spelling pitfall in all of law.

UPDATE: Here's my new post on the actual substance of the case.

14 comments:

John Jenkins said...

Hey, Word doesn't *do* Latin. That said, it's not a spelling error so much as a declining error- minimus is nominative rather than ablative/dative.

Kathleen B. said...

I heard that a not-to-be-named Ninth Circuit Judge made one of her clerks cry after she (the clerk) misplaced a comma in a bench memo. Wonder what Justice Kennedy would do to his clerks for the misspelling (if anything)!

Ann Althouse said...

Kathleen: The clerk should be put in a room with the air conditioner turned up high, Christina Aguilera music played loud, and after one hour, Justice Kennedy should come in a pour a glass of water on the clerk's head.

Charles said...

Ann, no comment on the ending of the concept of private property in America? Or even how this is what the Constitution writers intended to prevent by the crown?

Kathleen B. said...

ouch.

Ann Althouse said...

Charles: The thing is, I'm going to read the case first, and I just haven't had time to. I think there are some overheated statements being made right now, and I'm not just going to join that chorus.

Ann Althouse said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
M. Simon said...

Five so called grown ups who cannot read simple words in a simple way.

Who said my name was Simon?

Oh, yeah.

daleb7 said...

I think all practicing lawyers can agree that the most oft-mispelled legal-ese-y word is "parol" -- as in "the parol evidence rule". I mean, everyone, always, every single farging time spells it with the silent "e" at the end -- as if the evidence about that pesky contract is some sort a bad egg that needs to be rehabilitated with the help of a friendly, earnest civil servant. There ought to be a feature on WordPerfect and Word that immediately sends a strong electic current through the keyboard of anyone who types the words "parole evidence". Man I hate that.

tucola said...

"I think all practicing lawyers can agree that..."

Well, there's a first time for everything I suppose, but I doubt it!

Ann Althouse said...

Daleb: The one word you don't want to misspell when writing about misspelling is "misspell."

The most often misspelled word used in legal writing is "supersede."

Charles said...

Ann - Just wanted to hear a reasoned voice on private property. This sure sounds bad if government can take stuff (even with probably debateable just compensation) and sell it to other private individuals for general, though not actually public use. Take my house to build a sewage treatment plant, a highway, a prison... well okay I see the public domain. Take my property to sell it to someone else, or just seize my property to improve the value - sounds like the British Crown in 1775 that helped lead to the Constitution. I just don't like what I read.

Goesh said...

-what cheek to simply assume that said private industry will have longevity and success to provide jobs and increased tax revenues, after confiscating private residential property on which to build. How often have government projections and assessments gone awry? Didn't the court rule because a city government told them X number of jobs and X amount of tax dollars would be generated for the good of the community V. the good of private habitation that generates no revenues? I hope my house is taken so a porn mall can be built. Sheesh!

DSmith said...

"... simply assume that said private industry will have longevity and success to provide jobs and increased tax revenues..."

After Poletown, that assumption should untenable.