That extremely long string cite of cases where the court has ordered trial judges to strictly comply with the rule is about as close to outright criticism of a trial judge’s handle (or lack thereof) on the case below as an appellate court will ever get. It’s at the bottom of page 7. I count sixteen (!) cases. Keep in mind, most cites are just a case or two, max three. To string together 16 about a trial judge’s errors is significant, it's beating a dead horse into the ground and then lighting it on fire to make your point. It may not seem like it from reading this as a layman, but this opinion is SCATHING.
Man, Gawker’s attorneys must be so frustrated dealing with Hulk’s attorneys and that judge. This is a pretty terse opinion.
Holy effing yawn. Yay! Nitpicking court rules rules!
Law is so boring