Thursday, May 2, 2013

3d DCA Watch -- This Post Has Been Pre-Approved!

Sorry for the delay, but I recently took advantage of the bunker's new "pre-clearance" publication policy, which allows comments on opinions to be pre-approved and thus cleared for publication with the following snazzy and official-looking 3d DCA seal of approval:


So I just got this from the 3d DCA blogger pre-approval press office (it takes a few days), let me know what you think!

Citizens Prop. v. Zunzig:

In terms of the best worst opinions in 3d DCA history, this one easily takes the prize.  What a incredible, amazingly awful piece of work!

Kalb v. Sail Condo:

It gives me no great joy to report on this staggering work of mediocrity.

Can I have those 15 minutes back?  (SO I CAN READ IT AGAIN -- ed.)

Water Architecture v. City of Miami Beach:

Judge Shepherd thinks Pinellas County is exotic.

(ed. -- he really does!)




10 comments:

Anonymous said...

Once again you have successfully taken chicken shit and made a lovely chicken salad.

Anonymous said...

Ditto

CAPTAIN said...


THE CAPTAIN REPORTS:

SO, YOU WANT TO BE A CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE .....

The JNC has met and voted to send up five names to Governor Scott for appointment to the open seat of Judge Joel Brown. Your next Circuit Court Judge will likely come from the list of:

Jason Bloch
Judge Donald J. Cannava
Judge Wendell M. Graham
Ayana Harris
Robert Luck

If the Governor chooses one of the two County Court Judges, then he will get a 2for. We should have Governor Scott's answer no later than June 29th.

These five were interviewed and did not make the final cut:

Michelle A. Delancy
Alan Sackrin
Steven Reininger
Sandra Miller-Batiste
Thomas Cobitz

Good luck to all the nominees.

Captain Out .....
captain4justice@gmail.com

Anonymous said...

Captain, until you sign your name and put in for judge, you should refrain from publishing the names of those that "Did not make the Cut". You should be ashamed of enjoying other people's disappointments.

Anonymous said...

Captain, until you sign your name and put in for judge, you should refrain from publishing the names of those that "Did not make the Cut". You should be ashamed of enjoying other people's disappointments.

Anonymous said...

If the Captain can double post, so can I. More people taking advantage of the Tribe. L&T get a 50k fine and these schmucks get indicted.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/crime/fl-lawyer-fraud-seminole-tribe-20130502,0,7588391.story

CAPTAIN said...


Sorry 7:52, I understand your point of view, but I respectfully disagree.

First, there were 17 people that applied to be interviewed. Only ten made the first cut and were interviewed by the JNC. That is an honor by itself.

This is a game of attrition. You want to get your name out there and submit it often. You want to interview often. You want your colleagues to send letters and emails of support when you apply and when you interview.

So, when other lawyers out there in the blogasphere see those that did not make the final cut, and they think they should have, this gives them the opportunity to communicate with the JNC. I regularly will post the names and contact info of the JNC exactly for that purpose.

Also, at the end of this process, 16 of the 17 that originally filled out an application will be disappointed, to some degree. Kind of like the NFL, only that is 31 of 32.

Captain Out

Anonymous said...

A+ post SFL!

Godwhacker said...

As someone who hangs out at Carl Hiaasen's mango stand, what does this mean to me, the consumer?

Anonymous said...

Shepherd's concurrence makes no sense. He makes no principled distinction between Ontario, Canada, and other allegedly "exotic" locations, such as Greece and Hong Kong. How are judges to determine the sufficient level of exoticism of a location in determining whether to grant or deny a protective order in these instances? Of course, he doesn't say.

I'm sorry, but sometimes judges need to resist the urge to write. If the lower court had found that sending 15 attorneys to Canada constituted "exceptional circumstances" to fit within the exception to the general rule (and apparently he had not so found, warranting reversal), then the appellate court should simply have affirmed under an abuse-of-discretion standard, which undoubtedly should apply.