Well-written: Judge Wilkinson

In Waybright v. Frederick County, No. 07-1289 (4th Cir. June 2, 2008), Judge Wilkinson tells the "terribly sad" story of a twenty-three-year-old would-be firefighter who died of heat exhaustion during a grueling outdoor training exercise. He shatters the bereaved parents' section 1983 hopes, yet does so with such linguistic mastery that even A-Nu (who has a notorious soft spot for both section 1983 plaintiffs and firefighters) feels obliged to sing the opinion's praises.

First of all, the opinion is splendidly written. It doesn't read like an opinion. It reads like a short story. The sentences are succinct. The adjectives are well-chosen and evocative. The passive voice is nowhere to be found. Consider the starkness of the very first sentence: "Andrew Waybright died by accident while training to join the Frederick County Fire Department in Maryland." (A-Nu can think of many a judge who would have rejected this hard-hitting introduction in favor of some truly conscience-shocking verbiage, such as: "This case comes to us on appeal from a judgment against plaintiff, whose substantive due process claims against all defendants were denied by the district court.")

A-Nu acknowledges that Wilkinson can't take all the credit for the storytelling: the narrative of an aspiring young firefighter collapsing, struggling to his feet, insisting he wants to finish the training exercises with his class, and ultimately going into cardiac arrest is inherently compelling. So the true testament to Wilkinson's writing is that the opinion remains just as gripping once he starts laying down the law.

Part of this feat resides in the richness and variety of the vocabulary. The case "ballooned" as plaintiffs added more claims and more defendants. The Supreme Court "spurned" a Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence that would mimic tort law. Federal judicial oversight of matters traditionally left to the states is cause for "disquiet."

Wilkinson also demonstrates the power of the well-chosen example. He notes the "potentially staggering consequences of empowering federal judges to oversee everything from pillows left on prison stairs to sewer maintenance." Later, he cautions against allowing a federal claim whenever an accident takes place during state-sponsored activities: "[B]y finding a state-created danger here, we might well inject federal authority into public school playground incidents, football (or even ballet) practice sessions, and class field trips."

And rather than the typical drooled "we therefore affirm the judgment of the district court," Wilkinson instead graces us with a few well-chosen thoughts on the larger context. He explains: "In part, this case is sad because of the tragedy that set it into motion. But it is sad also because of the long legal detour that stilled all progress on the merits while federal courts necessarily rebuffed the prospect of federal law taking over the traditional office of the states."

A-Nu swoons: With that kind of linguistic artistry, Wilkinson could just about persuade her to do away with constitutional tort claims altogether.