As I mentioned earlier, I plan to take a sabbatical for at least a few weeks (maybe more) so I can
(You guys should give it a try too!)
So this will be my last 3d DCA Watch for a while, let's make it a good one:
Teitlebaum v. SF Water District:
You don't hear much about a takings theory premised on "condemnation blight."
Apparently the 3d DCA doesn't think much of it either.
State v. FL Worker's Advocates:
I hate when this happens:
The initial claims and parties in this case at its inception in 2011 were transformed by the present appellants and their counsel into a completely different set of claims and parties over the three years which followed. In the process, the case lost (1) the essential elements of a justiciable “case or controversy,” (2) an identifiable and properly-joined defendant, and (3) a procedurally proper vehicle for the trial court’s assessment of the constitutionality of section 440.11.Double Park v. Kaine Parking:
Is the 3d DCA a court of first impression?
Let's ask Judge Logue:
I do not join the remainder of the opinion, however, because it addresses issues that were not decided by the trial court. Those issues are best resolved in the first instance by the trial court in the context of a full factual record developed at the evidentiary hearing which we are ordering. This approach respects the prerogative of the seasoned trial judge, honors our role as an error-correcting court, and avoids the unintended consequences that might result from the doctrine of the law of the case.Just what is he trying to say?
HAPPY HUMP DAY SEE YOU SOON!!