3d DCA Watch — It’s Apodictic All Over Again!

Hi kids, I’ve recently created an iPhone app that inserts the word “apodictic” into any text so that certain 3d DCA judges can more easily avail themselves of this all-purpose, handy-dandy superword.Let’s see if anyone takes the bait this week….

TRG-Brickell Point v. Wasjblat:

Hey look, Judge Shepherd slowly and carefully explains how summary judgments are supposed to work:

However inscrutable the full-court resistance exhibited by these developers to returning the deposit monies in excess of fifteen percent in this case, they are entitled to the due process of the law, meaning a properly supported motion for summary judgment. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510(c). On the other hand, it is apodictic that summary judgments may not be granted at any type of hearing, absent the existence of “summary judgment evidence” in the record.

It is also apodictic that the sun rises in the east, water is wet, and that the Judge didn’t think very highly of what happened below.

UM v. Anscher:

It is apodictic that there are four requirements for issuing a TRO.The trial judge apparently missed one or two, let’s see if the 3d provides much-needed guidance on what went wrong and how to do it right next time:

Here, because the student did not adequately establish the elements for a temporary injunction, the trial judge improperly granted the temporary injunction. Accordingly, we reverse the temporary injunction.

Reversed and remanded.

Hope that helps!

PMG v. R and G:

It is completely apodictic from reading this sentence who wrote this opinion:

Without exploring any other infirmity in the order, the simple, acknowledged fact that counsel did not represent the plaintiff itself and thus cannot be in forbidden conflict with its interests renders the order completely unsupportable.

ACT Services v. School Board of Miami:

It is apodictic that the 3d DCA is not Lou Grant:

Indeed, the School Board has even supplied a proposed amended paragraph for us to “instruct the trial court” to use as a replacement for the paragraph of the challenged order severing claims for separate trial. Not even in the case cited for our supposed authority to issue such a directive, Nelson v. Wakulla County, 985 So. 2d 564 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008), do we find an appellate court providing specific editorial corrections to a trial court’s order on certiorari review.

Well, why not?

I’d love to see the 3d offer “specific editorial corrections” — too much passive voice! You’ve got spunk….I hate spunk…..not enough apodictic!

Oh hail, I’m going to the FBA lunch.