From Marion v. Orlando Pain & Medical Rehabilitation (Fla. Ct. App. Jan. 12, 2011) (thanks to Jeffrey Kuntz (Florida Legal Blog) for the pointer):
In response to our [earlier] decision, Appellant, through his counsel, filed his MOTION FOR REHEARING OR CERTIFICATION TO THE SUPREME COURT. The
first two paragraphs in the motion state as follows:
1. Oh.2. Please forgive in advance if, through the words of this Motion you can hear the author screaming, but I cannot overcome my indignation engendered by this Honorable Court’s per curiam affirmance of the lower court’s order. I understand that Motions for Rehearing are seldom granted by appellate courts, and for good reason. However, I must believe that if I correctly state the facts of this case, the court will retract its opinion and reconsider the issue. I assume that I failed in my obligation in the initial briefs.
Thereupon, counsel set forth what he labeled as facts. The statement of facts contained not a single record reference and many of the facts are unsupported by the
record. For example, the opening sentence of the statement of “facts” says that Appellees are “both proven con artists …,” yet the record bears no such proof. Nor
does a scandalous description such as this have any place in a pleading of this nature.Appellant’s counsel goes on:
6. In short, [Appellees] ran a con, using the (now, surprisingly, defunct) clinic as a shell. And now the Court seems to be saying this is OK in the Fifth District. If so, I have lived too long. (I am sorry — I am screaming again.)
Because of these failings, as well as more substantive ones, the appellant’s lawyer was ordered “to show cause why monetary or other sanctions should not be imposed.”
Kazinski says:
FRAUD!!!!!
January 19, 2011, 4:08 pmshg says:
Oh.
January 19, 2011, 4:11 pmTomH says:
Facts, heh. Evidentiary form, who needs it. Argument is so much more colorful, and easier, too, if you don’t wear the straightjacket of the law. Just ask political commentators.
Frankly, sometimes I stay up nights just trying to figure out how to put documents into evidence without needing yet another non-party deposition from an out of state witness.
January 19, 2011, 4:21 pmBill Poser says:
I rather admire point 1 – it’s concise and humble. Point 2 sure sounds like someone filing pro se.
January 19, 2011, 4:30 pmOrenWithAnE says:
Not a single neuron fires for the contrary assumption of “I’m wrong as a matter of fact and/or flaw”.
One wonders how litigants (and the hyper-partisan) can live in a world where such obvious possibilities are not even allowed to be considered.
January 19, 2011, 4:35 pmSteve says:
It would be easier to hear the author screaming if he liberally used ALL CAPS throughout.
January 19, 2011, 4:47 pmSeamus says:
Did the court really say “impose” when it should have said “imposed”? [EV says: Whoops, fixed, thanks!]
January 19, 2011, 4:56 pmUrso says:
Although we all chuckle at the overwrought brief, there is a fairly serious issue here — basically, the Court of Appeal says “when we dispose of your case in a PC without opinion, it’s not reviewable because there’s nothing to review.” In other words, if the court had put serious time and research into the matter, and written a full and thoughtful opinion, the appellant could conceivably have found good cause for rehearing or reconsideration. But because the court tossed off a one or two sentence rejection of the appeal, its ruling becomes inviolate.
January 19, 2011, 5:02 pmOrenWithAnE says:
This assumes that it is possible to write a full and thoughtful opinion of the appellant’s claims. If there are no cogent claims, no such review is even possible and hence the PC denial.
January 19, 2011, 5:10 pmHouston Lawyer says:
Appeal denied seems sufficient to me. No reason that an appeals court need explain every decision if no novel issues are being addresses.
If you want to throw a tantrum, don’t try to compel opposing counsel show up just to watch.
January 19, 2011, 5:14 pmjosh says:
certainly, failing to cite the record is a problem. But seriously, practitioners, you’ve never wanted to do this? Urso is right and Houston Lawyer is right about per curiam opinions. But on a more general note, I practice in the Cook County Circuit Court. There are times when I want to write a screed to judges who just don’t get it. certainly makes an entertaining read.
January 19, 2011, 5:33 pmTomH says:
It’s called a first draft.
January 19, 2011, 5:37 pmJohnF says:
I like his concept, “You really would like what I’m saying if I could just explain it better.” Straight from the health care debate!
January 19, 2011, 5:56 pmMike Moceri says:
Definitely pro se. Why did the Court even bother responding, though? Just sanction the hell out of the guy and call it done.
January 19, 2011, 6:08 pmDave N. says:
Worthy of rehearing? Doubtful. Sanctionable? No way.
At least that’s what I thought before I read the opinion. Having done so, I can see why the Court of Appeals is irked.
January 19, 2011, 6:18 pmDave N. says:
Only if Jerry H. Jeffery, Jr., is a psedudonym for Craig Tennant or Marie Marion.
January 19, 2011, 6:33 pmDavid M. Nieporent says:
“I strenuously object?” Is that how it works? Hm? ”
January 19, 2011, 6:47 pm“Objection.”
“Overruled.”
“Oh, no, no, no. No, I STRENUOUSLY object.”
“Oh. Well, if you strenuously object then I should take some time to reconsider.”
Anderson says:
“Well, then the court will STRENUOUSLY overrule.”
January 19, 2011, 7:43 pmIspep Teid says:
Judicial proceedings privilege for the win! (But court-imposed sanctions are still available.)
January 19, 2011, 8:09 pmIspep Teid says:
I disagree. A court of appeals should explain every decision. Doing so bolsters the legitimacy of the courts. If the case is not novel, the court should designate it as an unpublished decision.
January 19, 2011, 8:13 pmCrunchy Frog says:
Let’s introduce a bill, call it the Appelate Clerks Full Employment Act of 2011 and see how far that idea goes…
January 19, 2011, 8:19 pmIspep Teid says:
The Arizona appellate courts produce a written decision in every case. Most, naturally, are memorandum decisions.
January 19, 2011, 8:24 pmNMissC says:
If you’re going to fire a gun like this it damn well better be loaded
As a practicing lawyer, I’d expect someone who filed something like this and didn’t have (expected) accompaniments like record references was going to face sanctions.
January 19, 2011, 10:01 pmToday's Tom Sawyer says:
So it takes more law clerks to write one sentence with maybe three citations if the case is so clear?
January 19, 2011, 10:01 pmJeff S. says:
Shut up, they explained…
January 20, 2011, 5:30 amzuch says:
Suggestion: The unit of measurement for such sanctions ought to be made universal across the board and designated as “Taitzes”.
Cheers,
January 20, 2011, 10:06 amTed says:
I agree with this. A two-paragraph opinion with citations to the law that supports affirming the opinion below is all it takes. I realize that even a two-paragraph opinion will take time to research and write, and that courts are overburdened, but, um, isn’t that the whole point of having appellate courts? I want a objective way to know that the court actually looked at and considered my case. “Affirmed Without Opinion,” does not do that, but even a two-paragraph citation to the relevant and controlling law does.
January 20, 2011, 11:27 amIspep Teid says:
As an example of that, I picked a couple unpublished Arizona appellate decisions that were released today. This case concerns a simple property dispute. This is a routine child custody case involving pro se litigants. The decision below was affirmed without much difficulty in both cases, but I think the opinions give enough substance to let even the disappointed appellants know that the courts gave some serious consideration to the case.
January 20, 2011, 12:45 pmtamerlane says:
Pro se, ipse dixit, ipse loquitor!
January 20, 2011, 12:51 pmRyan says:
Are you from Latium?
January 20, 2011, 12:59 pmTed says:
I agree. As an appellate attorney, I don’t even need as much as the Arizona courts put in. The latter opinion even explained why the arguments were wrong. And just the legal portion of those cases would be sufficient for me; As an attorney advising clients, I need to know whether the decision below applied the correct legal rules, so I know, for the future, whether both the trial court and the appellate court agree as to what rules apply. If they disagree, a short explanation as to what rules the appellate courts think apply would be very helpful.
In Oregon, you can’t even cite and AWOP as precedent that the lower forum correctly applied the law, you can only cite it for the purpose of showing that the lower result was affirmed. If you ask me, that fosters conspiracy theories about whether the court really considered the case.
Now, I want to make clear that I have no problem with discretionary review. If you have no right to have a case heard, then you have no right to an opinion either. But intermediate review by right, as we have in Oregon, should provide some confidence that your right to review was taken seriously by the courts.
January 20, 2011, 1:53 pmJLH says:
Given a number of Supreme Court precedents, why not just return to the Greek world of purely rhetorical argument? I mean, its not like truth or reality have anything to do with Wickard, Raiche, Lochner’s progeny (or rather assassins), Slaughterhouse, and the list goes on. It’s not like anyone cares anymore.
Why not just call it what it is, a total B.S. contest of the most hilarious and hypocritical kind. After all, SCOTUS literally referenced the need to adhere fully to precedent. Stare decisis is “starry-eyed.” The Crits were correct, “do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.”
Personally, I think boxing matches would be the best trier of fact!
January 20, 2011, 2:28 pmTed says:
Damn straight. In a deterministic universe, why do we even have laws? People are predestined to do what they do, to think what they think. There is no room for mea culpa. On the other hand, I suppose people make laws and interpret them well or badly also because it is predestined. I guess it’s not something to get so worked up about then, is it? The universe just handed you a short straw, or life, as it may be…
January 20, 2011, 2:37 pmJLH says:
If all activity is predestined, then I guess I was predestined to get somewhat worked up, or, perhaps, to rage against the fact there is destiny at all. But, eh, its not like I have a choice.
As for “short straws,” I live an entirely blessed life, and have little about which I may complain. That said, NONE of the blessing has been a beneficent gift from SCOTUS on high. IMO, since the New Deal, they tend to make life harder for almost all Americans.
January 20, 2011, 2:47 pmNickM says:
There were times that I saw appellate courts gave such idiotic decisions that the first sentence of his paragraph 2 would have been warranted. I was representing the crosscomplainant on an appeal from the sustaining of a demurrer against his premises liability claim. The unpublished opinion came down, ruling against my client, and quoted the plaintiffs’ unverified complaint for the supposed operative facts, referring to that as the crosscomplaint in the opinion!
Nick
January 20, 2011, 5:08 pmDave N. says:
An unpublished opinion can be as simple as. “We agree with the attached ruling from the court below. Affirmed.” Because then, there’s at least something that showed someone thought about the case at the appellate level for 35 seconds — even if that person spent the bulk of the time finding the stapler on his desk.
Not saying anything at all just seems bad.
January 20, 2011, 6:12 pmJRL says:
No–I’ve never lost!
January 21, 2011, 2:17 pmGiant Frog says:
1. Oh.
This reminded me of my surprisingly effective “Petitioner’s Motion to Find Petitioner in Contempt of Court” with a page or so explaining how “Petitioner” was purposely ignoring the court orders and would continue to do so until physically forced to comply, which wasn’t possible, or jailed. Neither happened.
Motion denied (of course), which meant … what?
January 21, 2011, 3:06 pm