For whatever purpose, the Mississippi Supreme Court usually treats rehearing like a do-over rather than what, for all practical purposes, it really is: a full revisitation of the original decision's merits. To read a decision handed down on rehearing, one rarely can tell that it enjoyed a reexamination; for example, references to the previous opinion rarely are made, except to say that the original decision is withdrawn. Last year's judicial free-speech case, Osborne v. MCJP, is a good example. I don't know whether the practice arises from decorum, expedience, or a combination of the two, but either way, that's usually the way it goes.

For his part, though, Justice Graves is having none of it. In his Transocean separate opinion -- originally a dissent and now a special concurrence -- he opens with the most backhanded of endorsements: "Finally, the majority reaches the right result in this case." I nearly spit my coffee when I read it. Justice Graves goes on to quote his entire dissent from the Court's original Transocean opinion in an apparent effort to document what he views as the majority's insufficient efforts to clean up its mess. Although he probably didn't make any friends doing it, the presiding justice's approach brims with an intellectual honesty that is nothing short of refreshing.

But documenting a self-reversal serves a more practical purpose, too. Appellate courts are at their most helpful when they declare not only that a trial court erred but demonstrate how the court erred and explain what other lawyers and judges can do to avoid repeating the mistake. The same potential for instruction arises on rehearing: rather than sweeping aside its original opinion and pretending that it no longer exists, the Court can self-analyze its opinion, focus openly on its mistake, and demonstrate what it should have done the first time around.

For that reason, here's hoping that Justice Graves' approach catches on.