Wednesday, November 4, 2015

3d DCA Watch -- It's a Benchslap Party!


It's a bunker party, who could ask for more (leave your per curium affirmances at the door):

Maniglia v. Carpenter:

This guy seems like a model plaintiff:
At trial, however, the court allowed the jury to hear that Carpenter played in the golf tournament less than a month after the accident with Maniglia, and that Carpenter had played “bumper cars” with the golf cart at the first tee. The court also allowed limited evidence that Carpenter was intoxicated at the golf tournament, which Carpenter had relied on to explain his ability to play golf following his alleged injuries.

The jury did not hear the complete details of the golf cart incident, however, including Carpenter’s crash with an automobile, fall onto the pavement, and struggle with law enforcement personnel.
Have fun with that one at the retrial!

Penalver v. Masomere:

Another win for Dinah Stein!

Markwood v. Latam:

Let's puzzle over the trial court order's ambiguity!
The order contains an unfortunate and unnecessary element of ambiguity concerning whether it is final. First, it dismisses only the complaint (and not the case) and only “without prejudice,” two indications the order is non-final. The order then changes direction by finding that the Appellants’ claim is barred by collateral estoppel, in which case the ability to amend is futile and all judicial labor is at an end, indicating the order is final.

Such ambiguous orders create problems. First, they waste the time of the judges, lawyers, and court clerks who must puzzle over their finality. Second, they set a trap for the unwary. A party may be misled into thinking the order is nonfinal, when it is not, and thereby fail to appeal timely. Conversely, a party may be misled into thinking the order is final, when it is not, and thereby appeal prematurely. See, e.g., Brown v. Hous. Auth. of City of Orlando, 680 So. 2d 620, 621 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) (Griffin, J., concurring) (“Much time and energy has been wasted in this case . . . because of the lower court’s entry of an improper form of order.”).

Many things in law are difficult. Writing a clear and unambiguous order of dismissal is not one of them.
Oooh -- benchslap!

1 comment: