I get this confused, but an adverb can modify an adjective too, right?
Let’s study Judge Schwartz’ dissent in Stock Building v. Soares and see if we can find any examples:
With respect, I believe the Court’s analysis to the contrary embodies a super technical approach to the statutory scheme and gives binding effect to the utterly immaterial variances from the ordinary which had no effect upon the substantial rights of the parties.
So Judge Lagoa’s approach is not merely technical, but “super” technical — that’s an adverb modifying an adjective, correct?
And the variances are not merely immaterial, but “utterly” immaterial — is that another adverb modifying an adjective?
Or is this discussion too technical?
Portuondo v. Farm Stores:
You’re kidding — there is confusion over how to apply the offer of judgment statute? Who knew? But Judge Shepherd’s pithy dissent really leaves a mark:
SHEPHERD, J., dissenting.
This is the judicial equivalent of when I screwed up as a teen and my Dad gave me the dreaded “silent treatment.”
It still stings!