Here’s a reiteration of my “one negative (if any)” quota.  This sentence reverses itself so much that at the end of the day I have no idea who did what.

The employer contests the plaintiff’s denial that the appellate court erred by reversing the trial court’s conclusion that the plaintiff had not sufficiently pleaded his vicarious liability claim.

Huh?  Seriously, doesn’t this end up being more like an extended algebra equation than a statement of the case’s procedural posture?  And this — dare I say it — came from a judge’s opinion (names were changed to protect the guilty).   To all the esquires — and, yes, Your Honors too: do the plain folk a huge favor and quit with the multiple negatives, already.  It’s terribly confusing.