Oops, if you read this post earlier today I had the WRONG picture and link to the Judge. So yes, I figured out how to add pictures to the Nugget (other than my famously notorious one, and yes it took me a year), but I linked and showed Judge Limbaugh's son, who is actually on the Missouri Supreme Court. Hate to be at that Thanksgiving table -- Jones, your motion to speak is denied and affirmed. My apologies to both Your Honors.
So, Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, SENIOR (E.D. Mo.) (both Judge Limbaugh's are Rush’s cousins though so I was right about that) gave me a pretty good chuckle with this footnote in his D&K Healthcare opinion, wryly commenting that “although the Court appreciates creativity in pleadings, it must draw the line at words such as "incentivize" that have failed to make it into any recognized English language dictionary.”
When the laughter subsided, and I unlodged the pretzel from my throat, I took a look (I ain't no English scholar), and, um, it seems the folks over at The American Heritage Dictionary might beg to differ, and don’t even look at this result from no less than Merriam-Webster. Who knows who's right, but I guess the only option at this point is to shake up that toner cartridge and get that Motion to Reconsider on file guys. Better yet, how about an emergency mandamus request this Saturday night? Just use these procedures, they won’t mind -- and I promise it will generate an Order (although I make no guarantee what type).
But seriously though, you want the result of the opinion? Well, it looks like some parties were dismissed and some not, and it appears four orders were somehow issued within one opinion, but you don’t seriously expect me to sort all this out on a Friday before the long weekend do you?
Better think again because I have to go buy the best beer available and some highly explosive Florida style fireworks that absolutely no ordinary citizen like me should be allowed to possess. I hope you don’t live near me, as I plan to use them together.
You can read Dutton v. D&K Healthcare, issued June 23, 2006, at 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42553.
Nugget: “Defendant Plotnick's alleged conduct was evidently not a well-kept secret given the pervasive witness accounts by the numerous unidentified persons in the Second Amended Complaint.”