Justice Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar may be the Supreme Court’s most creative writer, from using Homeric and Shakespearean references to complaining about a comparison in a plurality opinion as being “a contrast between apples and oranges — or apples and Oreos, for that matter.” (Link added.)
Justice Cuéllar also memorably paraphrased a statute as defining grand theft to include stealing “more than $250 worth of the crops or critters” listed in the statute, which was apparently the first use of the word “critter” or “critters” in a California Supreme Court opinion.
Last week, Cuéllar might have made unbreakable his record for most uses of “critter” in Supreme Court decisions. In a 
unanimous opinion for the court in City of Oroville v. Superior Court, he wrote about inherent risks in public improvements that can lead to inverse condemnation liability, stating, “Faced with a panoply of other legitimate needs ranging from critter control to health care, a public entity might decide against expending additional funds or employing more protective measures in the construction of a project, even though the construction plan as adopted poses certain risks of damage to private property and the additional expenditures or protections could likely prevent that risk of damage.”
[On a first reading of the Oroville opinion, I didn’t notice the reference to “critter control.” Appellate lawyer Michael Colantuono — the winning attorney on the case — pointed out to me this important judicial milestone.]
