Thursday, November 15, 2012

Florida Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Non-Final Review!


First off, congrats to Judge Thomas for his nomination as a federal judge in the SD FL.

A great pick!

And here's Senator Leahy on the clogged federal judicial nomination process:
If we do not find a solution to both the vacancy crisis and the threat to judicial resources, it will be harder for Americans to obtain justice in our Federal courts.  Our courts are already overburdened, and the sequester will result in cuts that will force courts to hear fewer cases, which means that court proceedings will be delayed even longer.  This will be especially damaging in civil cases, where there are already over 40,000 cases that have been pending for more than three years.  Sequestration cuts could even result in the suspension of civil jury trials.  Even more alarming, is what is at stake in the criminal context.  If probation and pretrial services offices are downsized or closed, Federal courts and their staff will be unable to properly supervise thousands of persons under pretrial release and convicted felons released from Federal prisons.  It is critical, then, that we work together.
Gee, who in general benefits from delay?

(h/t Glenn Sugameli)

In other news, the Florida Supreme Court again seeks to clarify the scope of appellate court review of non-final orders, this time in a case involving a claim of immunity by Citizens Property Insurance:
With this backdrop, we address the use of extraordinary writs to review non-final orders not designated as appealable under rule 9.130(a)(3). We first decide the certified conflict issue involving the propriety of utilizing a petition for writ of prohibition to seek interlocutory review of a non-final order denying Citizens’ motion to dismiss. We next address whether a writ of certiorari is appropriately used under these circumstances. Finally, consistent with how this Court has proceeded when this type of issue is presented, we consider whether we should amend rule 9.130(a) to create a new exception to allow for review of a non-final order denying a motion to dismiss based on a claim of immunity asserted by a state-created entity.
Don't you love the textbook way Judge Pariente framed the issues?

Finally, we have a bunch of happy lawyers in South Florida.

(For now.)

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

Alters spent that money years ago.

Anonymous said...

Somewhere George Metcalfe is crying.

Johnson said...

Really this is very lucky day! I like it. Thanks for sharing such type of valuable post.

Business Lawyers

Maylene Vidler said...

You have a very good blog that the main thing a lot of interesting and useful! Life insurance comparison quotes

William Charles said...

What will have to those coming aspirants who will a degree of lawyers in his hands. Govt. can't expands the vacancy as it is, but have to sort out these problem and would have to think about enthusiasm guys who expand a decays in LAW.