From Oakland Raiders v. NFL, a California Court of Appeal decision filed on July 28:
RUSHING, P.J., CONCURRING
The Raiders are a diverse group of athletes. But despite such pluralism, the
Raiders is a singular football team, and because of this, I must concur in the technical
propriety of such phrases as “the Raiders asserts,” “the Raiders does not contend,” and
“the Raiders was discriminated against,” which appear in the main opinion. However,
although these phrases may be sound, their sound, to me, is personally foul and deserves
dissent, if not a 15-yard penalty and loss of down. This is especially so when the phrases
are read out loud.I have long been a loyal fan of grammatical agreement. The natural harmony
between subject and verb is usually euphonious. But my boosterism has not deafened
me. Though the merits of agreement may be great, here it is grating. The phrases noted
above are like blasts from an air horn or plastic trumpet, blaring technical correctness.Obviously, with a subject like “the Raiders,” the writer enters the challenging zone
of subject-verb agreement. And in this appellate opinion, I do not think we should have
simply agreed to “disagreement.” However, I believe we could have reached our goal of
meaning and avoided fumbling dissonance with a judicial substitution: pulling “the
Raiders” and going with a second-stringer like “the plaintiff.”
Interesting — but, is it just me, or does the above sound like more fitting for a blog post than for a court opinion?
Or could it be that some concurring or dissenting opinions have long been just official-looking blog posts?
Comments are closed.