Hi there, true fact: no matter the outside temperature or prevailing weather conditions, it is always exactly 51 degrees Fahrenheit in the bunker!
(A "no-prize" will be given to the most creative back story explaining precisely why that is the case.)
Citizens Property v. Mango Hill:
"Appraisal awards" are not arbitration awards; also something was "pretermitted" (look it up plebes!), all according to new Chief Judge Shepherd.
Pugliese v. Regional Hosp.:
Somebody down below forgot to do something:
Prior to addressing the merits of the appeal, we note the trial court did not include in the order on appeal its rationale for granting Plaintiff’s motion for new trial. The order granting a new trial was unsupported by any fact or law as required by section 768.043 (2)(a)-(e), Florida Statutes (2013), or even the bare finding that the verdict was contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. Indeed, such a minimum finding must also provide a basis in the record to sustain the grant of a new trial.So grading on a scale you would give the new trial order a C+?
Greenwald v. Eisinger:
This is a messy appeal involving legal malpractice and what the proper standards are for establishing liability as well as preserving error below.
Here's a taste:
Although the trial court sustained an objection to the two questions (the first of which was in fact answered by the witness and never stricken), the court had made no definitive ruling on the motion in limine. The fact the trial court sustained an objection to the question and denied a request for a sidebar did not obviate the need for a proffer in this case, nor did it suffice to preserve the claimed error.Wells v. Castro:
Another arbitration boo boo by the trial judge:
Because Castro’s Prevailing Party Motion did not set forth any of the statutorily enumerated grounds to vacate an arbitration award, the trial court was required to confirm the Initial Award as modified by the Remand Order. Instead, the trial court entered its own unauthorized order finding Castro to be the prevailing party. The trial court’s action was in direct contravention of section 682.12.One thing I always say - "never be in direct contravention of section 682.12" (that would make an excellent tattoo!).
Have a pretermittently sunny day!