Blog of law articles

Hi kids, before we begin our journey like a circle in a spiral, like a wheel within a wheel, never ending or beginning, on an ever-spinning reel, as the images unwind, like the circles that you find
in the judicial windmills of their minds, I want to talk about George L. Metcalfe.

George is a lawyer from Leesburg who got his letter published in the Florida Bar News.

Hooray!! Now everyone can learn more about George.

For example, George may in fact be an expert in child psychology:

Ultimately, nothing is as repulsive and emasculating to adolescent boys as being recruited for gay sex.

Umm, ok George, if you say so.

Anything else:

Holding vulnerable foster children like human shields to support homosexual adult social-engineering agendas is reprehensible. The Florida Bar’s Family Law Section and its amicus curiae appellate filings seek to endanger fatherless children for its own political ends and nothing more.

George, just what are you trying to say?

And by the way, have you ever written to the Miami Herald? The editors love letters like that!

Alright, enough with our friend George, let's see what the resplendently robed ones have uttered, what the coffee-swilling wise ones have graced upon us as we peek inside the heavily fortified concrete bunker that is our lovable 3d DCA:

Marbella Park v. My Lawn Service:

Judge Gersten to Judge Trawick -- did you know that in a contract for services the measure of damages is lost profits? And that means you can't just add up the gross amount due over the life of the contract, you have to deduct expenses too?

Now let's try that again.

Andries v. Royal Caribbean:

Oh no -- the Frye test!! I think the last judge to really understand how to apply this opinion was the guy who wrote it back in 1923.

But we are fortunate to have Judge Salter on the bench, who actually takes us through its application in his usual intelligent, clear, and careful manner.

Harris Specialty v. Punto Azul:

Oy, the offer of judgment statute. Here is another area of the law that is needlessly confusing and contradictory.

Do you think this clears it up for the trial judges and practitioners:

A proposal may be made by or to any party or parties and by or to any combination of parties properly identified in the proposal. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.442(c)(3); see also § 768.79, Fla. Stat. (2007). The rule does not require that a settlement proposal cover all claims between all parties involved, or that it settle all claims between the parties to the proposal. Jacksonville Golfair, Inc. v. Grover, 988 So. 2d 1225, 1227 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). The rule merely requires that a settlement proposal be sufficiently clear and definite to allow the offeree to make an informed decision without needing clarification. Carey-All Transp., Inc. v. Newby, 989 So. 2d 1201, 1206 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008). Further, courts are urged to “use reason and common sense and interpret the offer as a whole to avoid unreasonable results.” Jacksonville Golfair, 988 So. 2d at 1227.

So this should be the last appeal on this rule?

Finally, and this is out of my skill set, but I see the 3d ruled on the public defender third-degree felony controversy:

We understand the difficulties faced by PD11. With an ever-increasing quantity of cases and a tight budget, their important task is certainly made more difficult. The office-wide solution to the problem, however, lies with the legislature or the internal administration of PD11, not with the courts.

Hmm, I know that attitude.

It's an unsigned per curiam opinion by Judges Shepherd, Cortinas, and Salter, but at the end of the opinion Judges Cortinas and Salter simply concur, with a written "special concurrence" by Judge Shepherd.

BTW, this is what Judge Shepherd thinks:

[T]his action is nothing more than a political question masquerading as a lawsuit, and should be dispatched on that basis.

I also love how Judge Shepherd points out that not a single client of Carlos' office has raised any objection to the representation! I guess there's not really a problem, then.

And pstt, don't tell Obama, but Judge Shepherd has empathy with a capital E:

I empathize with PD-11’s argument that its attorneys are overworked and under-resourced. Such appears to be the natural condition of the public servants who serve clients before the judicial branch of this state. Absent individual proof of constitutional injury to those clients, however, empathy or lack thereof is for the legislature.

So, I wonder who really wrote the per curium opinion?