Hi kids, it's cold and I'm working too hard.
In other news, the bunker is insulated, the coffee warmed to optimum swilling temperature, the robes all have plug-in electric heaters, and the opinions are all just so darn cute and snuggly!
Avila v. Miami-Dade County:
Judge Shepherd has three words for you -- en haec verba!!
(No, I don't understand what it means either.)
In fact, the only words in Latin I remember are "tu es pulchra."
Weingrad v. Miles:
This one has some heavy duty appellate lawyers involved, must be pretty important:
Dr. Daniel Weingrad appeals an award of $1.5 million in noneconomic damages to Kimberly Ann Miles (“Miles”) and her husband, Jody Haynes (collectively, “Appellees”). The sole issue before this Court is whether the retroactive1 application of section 766.118, Florida Statutes (2003), which capped noneconomic damages in certain medical malpractice actions at $500,000, is constitutionally permissible as applied to the facts of this case. Because we find that Appellees had no vested right to a specific damage award at the time the injury occurred, we conclude that applying the cap to Appellees’ noneconomic damage award is constitutional, and we reverse and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.Judge Cope dissents, and given the conflict among the districts I suspect this one is going up up up.
Oh yeah, one more thing.
If you're going to cite to a book called A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage (2d Ed. 1995) maybe there's a more recent edition?
I'm not sure anything can properly be called "modern" in a year when the Spice Girls ruled, people were still playing Super Nintendo and Microsoft had just launched "Windows 1995."