Skip to main content

See There's This Rule in Appellate Practice....

Something about "raising it below and/or before" -- no, that's not a legalistic sex term (but it should be!):
We deny the petition because Collins did not raise the argument contained in his petition for rehearing in his initial brief on appeal....Collins premises his entire argument on one sentence he did not cite, as interpreted through three circuit court cases he did not cite.  We did not decide the issue presented in Collins' petition for rehearing, and neither do we decide the issue now.
In a footnote, they grind it in just a little bit more:
Nor did he raise it in his reply brief.
Ouch -- even if these three circuit courts are right?


  1. In the Eleventh Circuit, it's probably the strongest argument an appellee can use, if available. This decision bears that out.

  2. I was hoping we'd hear from P. Guyotat this week. I like his contributions.

    Where's the right winger been who tries to torment Godfucker?

  3. Problem with those rules is courts apply them when they want and disregard when they want.

  4. Happy Friday, SFL!!

  5. I successfully cited Cudahy v. Quirk twice this week!

  6. Facts: Quirk (D) was opposed to a proposal to fluoridate the public water supply by the Cudahy Junior Chamber of Commerce (P). Quirk offered to pay the plaintiff $1,000 if it could be shown that Quirk had misrepresented his claims that consuming fluoridated water could cause dermatologic, gastrointestinal and neurological disorders.

    After some investigation plaintiff demanded payment and Quirk refused. Plaintiff brought suit and the jury found misrepresentation by Quirk and entered judgment for plaintiff. Quirk appealed.

    Issue: May parties use the courts to settle a dispute over a wager?

    Holding and Rule: No. Parties may not use the courts to settle a dispute over a wager.

    Whether a transaction is a wager is determined by its essential nature rather than the label attached to it by the parties. Participants in a wager may not use the court to settle their dispute because gambling debts cannot be established or collected through the courts. Quirk effectively wagered $1,000 against the Chamber of Commerce’s efforts to prove him wrong.

    It is not the duty of a court to enforce a wager nor is a court to be used as a public forum to pass judgment or to act as a referee on every matter that comes before the public upon which an opinion may be stated.

    Public Policy: In this case the claimed misrepresentation by Quirk was made in the course of a public debate on a public issue affecting a public referendum. The political process is subject to wide latitude and it is not the duty and function of a court to determine whose side is right on such issues.

    Disposition: Reversed and remanded.

  7. Miss my weekly Spencer update. What gives?


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

My Kind of Federal Judge!

Sure we have Scott Rothstein and his lovely Tom James clothier Romina Sifuentes, but Louisiana has ED LA judge G. Thomas Porteous Jr.:
A federal judge from Louisiana who had run up big gambling debts routinely solicited money and gifts from lawyers with cases before his court, Congressional investigators said Tuesday as the House opened impeachment hearings in the judge’s case. The judge, G. Thomas Porteous Jr. of Federal District Court, had more than $150,000 in credit card debt by 2000, mostly for cash advances spent in casinos, investigators said. Judge Porteous’s requests for cash became so frequent that one New Orleans lawyer said he started trying to dodge the judge.“He began to use excuses that he needed it for tuition, he needed it for living expenses,” the lawyer, Robert Creely, told a House Judiciary Committee task force. “I would avoid him until I couldn’t avoid him anymore.”
Mr. Creely said he and his law partner, Jacob Amato, gave Judge Porteous an estimated $20,000 o…

Honoring Richard C. Seavey

I drank a shit-ton of bourbon last night. Enough to float a battleship.

My head hurts. But not as much as my heart.

We lost another lawyer over the weekend. Not someone who will receive facebook accolades and other public claims of friendship and statements that he shaped and changed lives and careers. Just a guy who did the best he could with what he had. Every day. And he did very, very well to be the best person he could be. 
Richard Seavey was a profoundly private person. In his 49 years, he walked through more than his share of trials and tribulations, mostly asking for no help, leaning on no one. 

Richard was a fantastic lawyer. He could try a case. He could "litigate" a case. He could mediate and settle a case. He was nuanced. He bent but never broke. The blustery Miami lawyer never scared him. To the contrary, he found humor in it, studying it like a science project. Richard never got too high or too low. He was good at lawyering, but you got the f…

First Carnival Triumph Lawsuit on File!

It was filed in the SD FL (of course) and is pending before Judge Graham.

Check it out here.

The lawyer on the pleading is Marcus R. Spagnoletti.