Blog of law articles

Hi kiddies, well that was some speech last night, huh?

Well it was, right up until -- oh god -- that Jindal guy came on my teevee and said he wants to give back all the taxpayer-funded New Orleans reconstruction money, or something like that.

Anyways, our coffee-swilling judicial scribes have been busy. Very very busy. So resplendently busy in their judicial vestments, in fact, they had to have the very senior Judge Schwartz write yet another opinion this week -- perhaps anticipating the DBR's official pronouncement that 80 is now the new 40, at least when it applies to judges.

Speaking of Judge Stettin, he also happens to be in this action-packed edition of 3d DCA Watch:

Brigham, Beran v. Brigam, Brigham:

A bunch of heirs with annoyingly similar names fight over a rich dead guy's trust proceeds. Case gets tried before the eminently senior Judge Stettin and is completely reversed with instructions to enter verdict for opposing side.

Listen, if that teaser gets you excited to know more of this backbreakingly dull opinion, have fun because you're on your own.

Greim v. Becker:

What do you know -- more heirs fight over a rich dead guy's proceeds!

See above for more details if you're into that kind of thing (and I hope you're not).

Road Estates v. Miami-Dade County:

Now we're cooking -- Judge Schwartz is in da house!

And by "house," I mean "uncompensated storm sewer":

The County’s justification for the contrary result, which was accepted by the appellate division notwithstanding its acknowledgement that the outcome “seems unfair,” was the desire to preserve the property’s present status as an area into which excess rain water which would otherwise accumulate on the surrounding land is drained onto the petitioner’s. Richard Road’s property is thus forced to act, as it were, as an uncompensated storm sewer for the neighborhood. As a matter of constitutional law, however, a policy such as this one, which is unrelated to appropriate zoning principles, cannot support the action below.

Footnote two is the best part of the opinion:

It may be observed that in this case, as probably in every case, what seems (because it is) unfair also turns out to be wrong.

Hey -- I should have never switched fortune cookies with him last week at New Chinatown!

Imagine if he had used the one I wound up with:

He who laughs last is laughing at you.

So true.

Still, it just doesn't have the same ring, does it?