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.”