Blog of law articles

Hi kids, anyone notice it's hot as hail out there?

I was going to leave for some early mid-week windsurfing, but then I realized today is that day, yes the exulted day, the only day when the written utterances emerge nearly unscathed from the fortified Concrete Bunker of Justice, that day of all days when the resplendently robed ones issue their guidance, their counsel, hail even their opinions, yes coffee-swillers hold on to your seats as we embark on a twisty-turvy nonstop emotional journey through the feelings of the judicial mind, in this week's totally effusive edition of 3d DCA Watch:

Manzano v. Nicolleti:

James W. Beagle, you get props not only because you have a cool name, but because you did the right thing and confessed error to the 3d.

I call that being a mensch.

Well done, sir.

Hayim Real Estate v. Action Watercraft:

The bearded one, Mike Ehrenstein, scores again.

A quick primer on the sale of commercial real estate:

It's caveat emptor, unless the contract says otherwise.

My work here is done.

GM v. Sanchez:

Have you ever felt unbound? Have you ever felt bound?

Have you ever felt generally?

For that matter, have you ever had feelings?

Well Judge Schwartz has had all of them, in spades, sometimes even in a single paragraph:

Having engaged in that process ourselves, we feel unbound by any contrary
indications in the language of the Gelinas decision. We feel generally the same
way about Fox v. Porsche Cars North America, Inc., 279 F. App’x 748 (11th Cir.
2008), which, indeed, directly holds that these fees are recoverable. In Fox, the
federal court, in discharging its duty under Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64,
58 S. Ct. 817, 82 L. Ed. 1188 (1938), to apply the existing law of Florida, felt
bound by the Gelinas dicta – in the absence of any competing authority. That
authority now exists.

Folks, that's a lot of feelings.