September 22, 2017

Archives for August 9, 2012

Colorado Court of Appeals: Week of August 5, 2012 (No Published Opinions)

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued no published opinions and twenty-one unpublished opinions for the week of August 5, 2012.

Neither State Judicial nor the Colorado Bar Association provides case summaries for unpublished appellate opinions. Case announcements are available here.

Legal Writing Pro: Five Grammar Myths

For scams and urban legends, we have snopes.com. But what about the grammar myths that fill the air at so many workplaces? Are these five myths holding you back—or making you crazy?

If you think you can’t start a sentence with “but” or “because” or would rather get a root canal than split an infinitive, prepare to be liberated.

Myth One: You can’t start a sentence with a coordinating conjunction like and, yet, or but.

What it would mean if true: All nine Supreme Court Justices would be incompetent writers.

Who says it’s a myth:

  • Chicago Manual of Style, 16th ed.: This myth has “no historical or grammatical foundation”; “a substantial percentage [often as many as 10 percent] of the sentences in first-rate writing begin with conjunctions” (5.206).
  • American Heritage Guide to Contemporary Usage and Style: starting sentences with conjunctions is “rhetorically effective” (p. 70).
  • Joseph Williams, Style: “Just about any highly regarded writer of nonfictional prose begins sentences with and or but, some more than once a page” (p. 182).
  • Garner’s Modern American Usage: “It is a gross canard that beginning a sentence with but is stylistically slipshod” (p. 121).
  • Fowler’s Modern English Usage, 2nd ed.: “That it is a solecism to begin a sentence with and is a faintly lingering superstition. The OED gives examples ranging from the 10th to 19th c.; the Bible is full of them” (p. 29).
  • Wilson Follett, Modern American Usage: “A prejudice lingers from a by-gone time that sentences should not begin with and. The supposed rule is without foundation in grammar, logic, or art. And can join separate sentences and their meanings just as but can both join sentences and disjoin meanings” (p. 27).
  • Merriam Webster’s Dictionary of English Usage: “Everybody agrees that it’s all right to begin a sentence with and, and nearly everybody admits to having been taught at some past time that the practice was wrong. . . . Few commentators have actually put the prohibition in print; the only one we have found is George Washington Moon (1868)” (p. 93).

Myth Two: You can never split an infinitive.

What it would mean if true: The Star Trek writers should have rewritten this famous sentence: “To boldly go where no man has gone before.”

Who says it’s a myth:

  • Chicago Manual of Style, 16th ed.: “It is now widely acknowledged that adverbs sometimes justifiably separate an infinitive’s to from its principal verb” (5.106).
  • The Elements of Style, 4th ed.: “Some infinitives seem to improve on being split,” as in “I cannot bring myself to really like that fellow” (p. 113).
  • American Heritage Guide to Contemporary Usage and Style: “[T]he split infinitive is distinguished [by both] its length of use and the greatness of its users . . . noteworthy splitters include . . . Abraham Lincoln, George Eliot, Henry James, and Willa Cather” (p. 441).
  • Barbara Wallraff, Word Court: “Splitting an infinitive is preferable both to jamming an adverb between two verbs . . . and to ‘correcting’ a split in a way that gives an artificial result” (p. 99).
  • Fowler’s Modern English Usage, 2nd ed.: “We admit that separation of to from its infinitive is not in itself desirable,” but “we will split infinitives sooner than be ambiguous or artificial” (p. 581).

Myth Three: You can’t split a verb phrase.

What it would mean if true: You would have to write “he usually will take an extreme position,” not “he will usually take an extreme position.”

Who says it’s a myth:

  • Chicago Manual of Style, 16th ed.: “There is no rule against adverbial modifiers between the parts of a verb phrase. In fact, it’s typically preferable to put them there” (5.168).
  • Garner’s Modern American Usage: “[M]ost authorities squarely say that the best place for the adverb is in the midst of the verb phrase” (p. 23).
  • Wilson Follett, Modern American Usage: “With a compound verb—that is, one made with an auxiliary and a main verb—the adverb comes between auxiliary and main verb (He will probably telephone before starting)” (p. 18).
  • Merriam Webster’s Dictionary of English Usage: “This bugaboo, commentators agree, seems to have sprung from fear of the dread split infinitive” (p. 36).
  • Fowler’s Modern English Usage, 2nd ed.: “It is probably a supposed corollary of the accepted split-infinitive prohibition; at any rate, it is entirely unfounded. . . . There is no objection whatever to dividing a compound verb by adverbs” (pp. 464-65).

Myth Four: You can’t end a sentence with a preposition.

What it would mean if true: You would have to mimic Winston Churchill, who famously mocked the alleged rule by saying, “This is the type of arrant pedantry up with which I shall not put.”

Who says it’s a myth:

  • Chicago Manual of Style, 16th ed.: “an unnecessary and pedantic restriction” (5.176).
  • Garner’s Modern American Usage: The rule is “spurious” (p. 654).
  • Patricia O’Connor, Woe is I: “This idea caught on, even though great literature from Chaucer to Shakespeare to Milton is bristling with sentences ending in prepositions” (p. 183).
  • Fowler’s Modern English Usage, 2nd ed.: “It was once a cherished superstition that prepositions must be kept true to their name and placed before the word they govern in spite of the incurable English instinct for putting them late” (p. 473).

Myth Five: You can’t start a sentence with because.

What it would mean if true: Emily Dickinson made a mistake when she wrote, “Because I could not stop for Death, / He kindly stopped for me.”

Who says it’s a myth:

  • American Heritage Guide to Contemporary Usage and Style: starting a sentence with “because” is “perfectly appropriate” (p. 53).
  • Mark Davidson, Right, Wrong, and Risky: starting a sentence with “because” is “fully accepted” (p. 105).
  • Joseph Williams, Style: “[T]his particular proscription appears in no handbook of usage I know of” (p. 181).
  • Garner’s Modern American Usage: “odd myth [that] seems to have resulted from third-grade teachers who were trying to prevent fragments” (p. 92).
  • Merriam Webster’s Dictionary of English Usage: “This rule is a myth. Because is frequently used to begin sentences,” often “for greater emphasis” (p. 171).

Ross Guberman is the founder and president of Legal Writing Pro, an advanced legal-writing training and consulting firm. He has conducted more than a thousand programs on three continents for many of the largest and most prestigious law firms and for dozens of state and federal agencies and bar associations. Ross is also a Professorial Lecturer in Law at The George Washington University Law School, where he teaches an advanced seminar on drafting and writing strategy. When you see the logo, you’re reading an article from Legal Writing Pro, where the article originally appeared.

Judicial Performance Evaluations Now Available Online for 2012 Election

The State Commission on Judicial Performance and local judicial district performance commissions have completed their evaluations of 90 judges who are scheduled to stand for retention in the November 6, 2012, election.  The non-partisan commissions are charged with providing voters with fair, responsible, and constructive evaluations of individual judges seeking retention, and providing judges with useful information concerning their performance.  The evaluations were made public online on August 7 and will be printed in the Blue Book, which is mailed to every active registered voter household in the state.

The judicial performance commissions evaluate judges on a wide range of criteria, including integrity, legal knowledge, communication skills, judicial temperament, and administrative performance.  To do this, commissions review information from several sources:  written opinions and decisions, caseload statistics, interviews, courtroom observations, judges’ self-evaluations, and independent surveys.   Earlier this year, surveys were sent to more than 50,000 people who have had recent involvement with the judges, including prosecutors, public defenders, and private attorneys, litigants, jurors, crime victims, law enforcement officers, court employees, court interpreters, and probation officers. The results of interim survey results from past years are also reviewed.

The commissions then produce a narrative for each judge with a recommendation of “retain,” “do not retain,” or “no opinion,” which are included in the “Blue Books” published by the Legislative Council.  The Blue Book is an informational booklet which provides voters with an analysis and arguments for and against every statewide ballot measure and also includes the evaluations of the judges standing for retention. The narrative, recommendation, and complete statistical survey results are now available on the Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation website and can be viewed here.

The volunteer members are appointed by the Colorado Chief Justice, Governor, President of the Senate, and Speaker of the House.  Each commission consists of 10 members:  six non-attorneys and four attorneys.