Thursday, June 14, 2012

Judge Easterbrook‽

Eugene Volokh points out that a recent Seventh Circuit opinion (authored by Judge Frank Easterbrook) appears to include an interrobang:
We have mentioned that Booth Trust and Gross did not make a demand on the directors before filing suit, and that neither plaintiff nor any other investor (in his role as investor) suffers antitrust injury. Plaintiffs say that investors still can gain from this suit, because removing interlocking directors from the board will eliminate any chance that the United States will file a §8 suit to remove them. We don’t get it. In order to avoid a risk of antitrust litigation, the company should be put through the litigation wringer (this suit) with certainty
I confess that after reading this paragraph several times I actually have no idea what it is supposed to mean, and I haven't read the whole opinion to find out. So I can't say whether the interrobang was intentional or a bizarre typographical error. But the italics (in original) make it seem intentional.

And that's a good thing‽ 

1 comment:

  1. this seems to be an appropriate use of the interrobang: a question that is essentially rhetorical with a tone of outrage or snarkiness.

    Is that a bad thing‽


Comments on posts older than 30 days are moderated because almost all of those comments are spam.