Do you care at all about the historic differences between law and equity, and whether those differences (and the many cases decided under that older rubric) have any meaning
Then read this opinion:
The Defendant’s argument is based on the mistaken premise that there existsBut good suggestion, Defendant!
a difference between a final “judgment,” final “decree,” and final “order” in
procedural law. Any such difference, however, was collapsed long ago when equity
was merged with law for purposes of procedure, as the rules themselves expressly
recognize. Adopting the Defendant’s argument would require us to overrule decades of case law and will cause confusion, delay, and unnecessary expense to courts and
Seems simple enough, but Judge Scales says "not so fast":
While the en banc majority opinion quashing the panel ruling is well reasoned and produces a logical result, it most assuredly rewrites rule 1.540(b).7 While such a rewrite might be in order, I prefer the formal rule-drafting process over the adjudicatory version of rule-writing employed by the majority.Hmm, I'm no scholar (ok, I kinda am), but is the Judge trying to say something here?
Aah, the good old days.....