It's the day before Thanksgiving -- why are you still in the office?
But today is a special 3d DCA Watch, when the written utterances wafting northward from the bunker include just a seasonal hint of sage, cranberry sauce, warm fresh baked apple pie, and lingering three-day old sock sweat (I'm not saying which judge worked out last in the mechanical room/gym/storage closet before taking off for the holidays).
So absorb it all in and let the holiday commencements commence:
Gorrin v. Poker Run:
What does "meaningfully distinguishable" mean? Is that "distinguishable minus one"?
KJB Village v. Dorne:
The sad story of the demise of North Bay Village's Siam Bagel -- a classic South Florida real estate boondoggle.
Pederson v. Boggess:
Hmm, this is a per curiam reversal in which Judge Schwartz sat on the panel.
Note the language:
Upon consideration of the appellees’ confession of error, which we find to be eminently well taken, the default money judgment under review is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.I think I know who wrote that!
Fortune Int'l v. M Resort:
So now receivers are supposed to be neutral:
When a party itself is paying substantial funds into a receivership, as here, it seems reasonable that some of those funds might be authorized for payment of that party’s attorneys. But the linchpin of a receivership is the principle that a receiver, like the appointing court itself, is a neutral party in the underlying dispute. The receiver’s role is the preservation and protection of the assets in dispute, not as a paying agent for the litigation-related legal expenses of one of the parties.With the exception of that firm which now has to disgorge all those fees -- have a great Thanksgiving weekend!