Does anyone really like the geometric pattern of the bunker?
I for one do, and in fact I have suggested a few simple modifications to further bring out the angles, the boxiness, the sharp lines that just scream out “we who labor here seek only the truth (and hip early 70s Norwegian building design).”
What do you think — I kinda like it.
Ok, the eggnog has been added to the coffee, the swilling has reached veritable OCD levels, and the mistletoe has been strategically placed above a certain former Chief Judge as we launch into the final, action-packed 3d DCA Watch of this wunnerful, wunnerful year:
Honeywell v. Guilder:
Here we are again with this case, and a new opinion has been substituted which reverses the $24 million mesothelioma verdict.As before, one issue was the trial court’s failure to redact a portion of an old letter:
Here, the Bendix employee’s letter to an asbestos supplier written in the late 1960’s was relevant to proving Honeywell’s knowledge of the dangers of asbestos in its products. However, we find that the portion that stated, “My answer to the problem is: if you have enjoyed a good life while working with asbestos products why not die from it. There’s got to be some cause[,]” was unfairly prejudicial. See § 90.403. Therefore, the trial judge erred in refusing to redact this portion of the letter for use at trial. See MCI Exp., Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 832 So. 2d 795 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002).
I agree there’s no question that portion of the letter is highly prejudicial, but why is it unfairly prejudicial?It just is, I guess.
Master Plaster v. Scottsdale Insurance:
This one’s just here because of the name Master Plaster.
You ask me am I happyWell as matter of factI can say that I’m ecstatic’Cause we all just made a pactWe’ve agreed to get togetherJoined as children in JahWhen you’re moving in the positive
Your destination is the brightest star
You go, Stevie!!
United Real Estate v. Key Biscayne:
Hey, Tricky Dick’s old helipad!
(Alas, no mention of Bebe Rebozo.)
Dora Puig v. PADC Marketing:
Interesting opinion on the impact of a bankruptcy proceeding as it affects a nondebtor.Bottom line is Don Peebles better get ready for his deposition.
Banner Supply v. Harrell:
This is a Chinese Drywall case pending before Judge Freeman. The defendant filed a motion to abate, did not do any of the required statutory inspections, and consequently it looks like this sucker is going to trial.
Congrats to Steve Rosenthal — you’re going to have a busy 2010.
Finally, on behalf of the lawyers of South Florida, I want to wish the Resplendently Robed Ones a very Happy Holidays and a great New Year, and a sincere thanks for your good humor and dedicated public service (not to mention an exceptional year in judicial punditry).