A Third Circuit panel yesterday issued a non-precedential opinion in Betz v. Satteson, and, although they affirmed, they expressed their displeasure with the opinion below with gusto.
Right out of the gate, in the opinion’s second sentence, the panel said it was “troubled by the inappropriately caustic and derogatory tone of the District Court’s opinion.” Then a footnote added:
The District Court here issued a 125-page opinion peppered with gratuitous and disparaging remarks about Appellants and their child. Those entrusted with the solemn duties of judicial office are expected to handle proceedings in a manner that reflects the appearance as well as the reality of even-handed justice and respect for the litigants as well as for the law.
And the panel wasn’t done yet. Later on, the opinion said that images in the record “cannot be fairly characterized as the District Court described them” and hammered “the District Court’s incorrect and intemperate characterization of the video.”
The district court opinion is not like any district court opinion I’ve seen before. It speculates that the 13 year-old plaintiff’s injuries were “perhaps a timely form of divine retribution.” Its conclusion says that the case had wasted the court’s time (this on page 124 of its opinion), and advised the child to apologize and accept the consequences of his actions, “which advice he apparently has not received from his parents.”
(On a more mundane note, the district opinion also identifies the authors of most of the Third Circuit opinions it cites, which is a big no-no for briefs and something I’ve never seen in a district court opinion.)
The Third Circuit opinion was authored by Judge Krause and joined by Judges Ambro and Rendell. The district court judge was Judge Matthew Brann of the Middle District of Pennsylvania, who recently sat with the Third Circuit by designation and just authored a non-precedential opinion.