Sunday, July 3, 2011

Phil Parrish Strikes Back!

 Appellee's Motion for Rehearing en Banc


The Brickell Honda motion for rehearing en banc has arrived!

The Brickell Honda motion for rehearing en banc has arrived!

The Brickell Honda motion for rehearing en banc has arrived!

(I get excited by things like this.)

Notably, if Phil's brief is to be believed, the bizarre issue of class counsel's inability to fund the litigation was raised sua sponte by the Court, and was not identified as error by the Appellant or even mentioned in the briefs.

Isn't there some sort of appellate rule about that kind of thing?

7 comments:

  1. It is not a good idea to label a court opinion's as "infirm" on a motion for re-hearing. To me, "infirm" connotes a 95 year old in an assisted living facility waiting for God to ring her up. Not the best of adjectives in a legal brief. While on the topic of words, what does "misdescribe" mean? Don't use a word in a brief that you do not use in every day conversation. Why does this motion go on for 15 pages? I once attended a seminar by a 3 DCA judge. He said that most judges don't pay much attention to anything beyond the first 6 pages of any brief. They have the attention span of any normal human being with a heavy work load. Further, if you cannot convince a judge of the merits of your position in 6 pages or less, you probably have a losing argument.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Circular file.

    ReplyDelete
  3. i agree with STL: this guy nailed it in the first 6 pages and then decided to write 9 more.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Between this and the recent Trinidad opinion, one could legitimately question Judge Rothenberg's competence.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Rothenberg obviously wanted to kill this case for some reason(s) not set forth in the Opinion. That she cites the wrong statute throughout the Opinion is very telling.

    ReplyDelete
  6. One word for the opinion: PAYOFF!

    ReplyDelete
  7. I believe one and all must glance at it.
    Barrie homes

    ReplyDelete