Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Florida Blogs -> South Florida Lawyers

Florida

: South Florida Lawyers

3d DCA Watch -- Down the Rabbit Hole!

 

And into the bunker, sweet Alice:

Down, down, down. Would the fall never come to an end! `I wonder how many miles I've fallen by this time?' she said aloud. `I must be getting somewhere near the centre of the earth. Let me see: that would be four thousand miles down, I think--' (for, you see, Alice had learnt several things of this sort in her lessons in the schoolroom, and though this was not a very good opportunity for showing off her knowledge, as there was no one to listen to her, still it was good practice to say it over) `--yes, that's about the right distance--but then I wonder what Latitude or Longitude I've got to?' (Alice had no idea what Latitude was, or Longitude either, but thought they were nice grand words to say.)

Presently she began again. `I wonder if I shall fall right through the earth! How funny it'll seem to come out among the people that walk with their heads downward! The Antipathies, I think--' (she was rather glad there was no one listening, this time, as it didn't sound at all the right word) `--but I shall have to ask them what the name of the country is, you know. Please, Ma'am, is this New Zealand or Australia?' (and she tried to curtsey as she spoke--fancy curtseying as you're falling through the air! Do you think you could manage it?) `And what an ignorant little girl she'll think me for asking! No, it'll never do to ask: perhaps I shall see it written up somewhere.'

Down, down, down. There was nothing else to do.....

Welcome to the wild, fantastical, technicolor world deep inside the bunker, where Resplendently Robed Ones promenade down endless halls of Sapele wood-colored concrete; where coffee is provocatively hand-swilled by handmaidens, eunuchs, and appellate counsel (sometimes all the same person!); and where statutes, rules, precedent and gut justice collide in a cacophony of axiomatic sensation climaxing in the very written utterances pulsing concentrically and blissfully out to you today:

Moffat & Nichol v. B.E.A.:

Judge Shepherd writes about being a "consensual lienholder."

I thought this kind of thing went out with Plato's Retreat and key parties?

Lewis v. Sun Time Corp.:

Can a set of stairs have a birthday?

Maybe, according to Judge Schwartz:

Plaintiff?s argument on appeal that evidence of ?seventy-one (71) years without an accident, would have been too remote to be relevant? is not sensible. We are not dealing with a question of whether or not there was an accident on the stairway?s birthday in 1937, but rather evidence that there had been no accident on any of the 25,915 days?come rain or come shine?prior to June 1, 2006, when the plaintiff fell.

Also, the lack of accident history for the staircase was decidedly not a "feature" of the trial, even though defense counsel in closing called it "the most important piece of evidence in the case."

 And if you go chasing rabbits
And you know you're going to fall.....

K.R. Exchange v. Fuerst:

Judge Lagoa offers some tips for drafting a complaint:

In this case, the complaint, which purports to allege legal malpractice claims against FHI and Ittleman, fails to comply with the basic rules of pleading. The complaint consists of forty-seven numbered paragraphs containing factual allegations and legal conclusions concerning the malpractice claims against FHI and Ittleman, as well as the claims against CRA and Guido, concerning the implementation of the compliance program. The claims against the various defendants are not divided into separate counts, titled ?legal malpractice? or otherwise. Instead, the complaint randomly intersperses the factual allegations and legal conclusions against FHI and Ittleman among the allegations against the other defendants without denoting the separate claims. In addition, numerous paragraphs contain allegations and legal conclusions that improperly refer to FHI and Ittleman (as well as CRA and Guido) collectively as ?defendants? and do not differentiate among the various defendants? actions and statements. Furthermore, in violation of Rule 1.110(b), the complaint improperly contains rambling allegations stating in general terms K.R.-Israel?s dissatisfaction and frustration with FHI and Ittleman?s legal performance. ?To say merely that this complaint is not well pleaded is an understatement. It lacks minimal organization and coherence.? Pratus, 807 So. 2d at 796.  

When logic and proportion
Have fallen sloppy dead
And the White Knight is talking backwards
And the Red Queen's "off with her head!"
 Remember what the dormouse said;
"Feed YOUR HEAD!"
"Feed YOUR HEAD!"

Full post as published by South Florida Lawyers on October 20, 2010 (boomark / email).