Elliott v. Elliott, 93-0147
| Decision Date | 30 November 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 93-0147,93-0147 |
| Citation | 648 So.2d 137 |
| Parties | 19 Fla. L. Weekly D2508 James Norman ELLIOTT, Jr., Appellant, v. Jane L. ELLIOTT, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Michael David McDonough, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Jane L. Elliott, pro se.
John L. Avery, Jr. of Law Offices of John L. Avery, Jr., Jupiter, for appellee (withdrawn as counsel after filing brief).
ON RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
In this court's opinion on motion for rehearing, we ordered Appellant's counsel to show cause within twenty (20) days of the date of the entry of that opinion, why monetary and other sanctions should not be imposed for conduct determined to be a flagrant violation of Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.330(a). Appellant's counsel mailed his response on the twentieth day, indicating that he intended no disrespect to this court, the lower court, or opposing counsel, and expressed his apologies. Had counsel simply ended there (leaving well enough alone), the matter would have been adequately addressed and put to rest. Instead, Appellant's counsel proceeded to explain what prompted his argumentative and overzealous motion for rehearing, namely, the fact that the court's opinion "was a simple per curiam affirmance of the trial court's Final Judgment, and the undersigned attorney found it impossible to discern the Court's reasoning."
This is a most disturbing revelation from any practitioner, let alone one who has practiced for fifteen (15) years and who admittedly has filed numerous appeals during that period of time. The notion that an appellate practitioner would view a per curiam disposition, without opinion, as lacking in a meaningful review is absolutely astounding. (E.g., "the undersigned attorney was extremely surprised at this Court's per curiam affirmance and presumed that his argument had been overlooked by this Court.") It was not until appellate counsel read a concurring opinion by another member of this panel on motion for rehearing, that he felt that the court had properly addressed issues originally raised in his appeal. Appellant's counsel seemingly tells this court, in effect, that had this court accompanied the per curiam affirmance with a written opinion it would have been clearer to him that the court had not overlooked the case authorities cited by him.
Perhaps appellate counsel should not be faulted for this misconceived view of a per curiam affirmance, without opinion. Perhaps the fault lies with the law school curriculum, the continuing legal education programs offered by the Florida Bar, or by the appellate courts themselves, in not engendering a sense of confidence that the absence of a written opinion is not akin to a superficial treatment, and in leaving the bar with the unfounded notion that the court "did not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Oasis Pub. Co., Inc. v. West Pub. Co.
...661 So.2d 1321 (La.1995), and State v. Campbell, 661 So.2d 1374 (La.1995), by way of example. 3 West provides Elliott v. Elliott, 648 So.2d 135 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1994), and Elliott v. Elliott, 648 So.2d 137 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1994), as an example. The Florida District Court of Appeals decided ......
-
Crittenden v. State , 5D11–745.
...the case was not considered on the merits. Each and every appeal receives the same degree of attention. See, e.g., Elliott v. Elliott, 648 So.2d 137 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (containing detailed discussion of use of per curiam affirmances, including explanation that affirmance without written op......
-
Weidmann v. State, 5D06-965.
...upon. This is untrue. His claim was considered and rejected on the merits. See Weidmann, 902 So.2d at 819; see also Elliott v. Elliott, 648 So.2d 137, 138 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). We conclude that the present motion is frivolous and an abuse of process. See Isley v. State, 652 So.2d 409, 410 (F......
-
Batchelor v. Geico Cas. Co., Case No. 6:11-cv-1071-Orl-37GJK
...was per curiam does nothing to convince the Court that Defendant's arguments were not fully reviewed. See Elliott v. Elliott, 648 So. 2d 137, 138-39 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) ("The notion that an appellate practitioner would view a per curiam disposition, without opinion, as lacking in a meaningf......
-
Appellate motions for rehearing: when is enough really enough?
...cases relied upon by the losing party.[28] The Fourth DCA's written response to the order to show cause in Elliott v. Elliott, 648 So. 2d 137 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994), also suggested by implication that a "good-faith" motion for rehearing of a PCA might be tolerated. This suggestion has been rei......