Summarily: A Podcast for Busy Lawyers: Recent Episodes
Robert Scavone Jr.
Summarily is a podcast for busy lawyers. Twice a month you will receive summaries of important appellate opinions from the Florida Supreme Court, the DCAs, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. There will also be breaking news episodes and interviews with guests who will provide practice advise and insight on important legal issues. Questions or comments? Please e-mail summarilypod@gmail.com. Enjoy. Subscribe. Share. Follow me on LinkedIn: Robert Scavone Jr.
Diddy got 50 months.
Smokey's allegedly got 48 counts.
And Eddie Winslow… might’ve pulled a Judy Winslow and vanished.
In Episode 3 of Zone of Risk, trial attorneys Joni Mosely and Spencer Charif unload more chaos, breaking down the prison sentence for Diddy, the criminal investigation into Smokey Robinson, and how Family Matters star Darius McCrary (aka Eddie Winslow) found himself locked up over child support… and was possibly trying to flee the country.
If you’ve ever wondered what happens when Hollywood drama meets federal law, this is the courtroom breakdown you didn’t know you needed.
🔗 Connect with the Hosts:
Joni Mosely – TheMoselyFirm.com
Spencer Charif – CharifLaw.com
In this episode of Zone of Risk, trial attorneys Joni Mosely and Spencer Charif unpack celebrity legal drama like no other.
From Smokey Robinson’s ‘bad girls’ defense, and Tyler Perry’s helpful questioning.
They break down the lawsuits, the shady legal strategies, and the pure media chaos surrounding public figures who think the courtroom is just another stage (thanks OJ).
Chapters:
00:19 – You are entering the Zone of Risk
10:11 – The MAN Act, Federal Strategy & How Cases Get Moved
20:29 – Coerced Performances, Lawsuits Against Spouses & Civil Liability Explained
31:01 – Workplace Power Dynamics: When the Boss Crosses a Line
41:02 – Shannon Sharpe’s Mouth, Legal Fallout, and Control Fails
52:08 – Crying in Court & Public Reputation Damage
62:24 – Final Thoughts: Bring Your Big Boy Pants
🔗 Connect with the Hosts:
Joni Mosely – TheMoselyFirm.com
Spencer Charif – CharifLaw.com
In the debut episode of Zone of Risk, trial attorneys Joni Mosely and Spencer Charif dive headfirst into three courtroom sagas you have to hear to believe.
The Karen Read retrial: a high-profile case featuring discredited expert witnesses, alleged police cover-ups, and a prosecution theory torn apart by its own evidence.
The Diddy/Cassie case: and why the defense’s strategy to flip blame on the victim could actually work.
And a case from Joni and Spencer’s own war chest, involving a loaded gun used during sex... and a defense so wild, it made the judge go silent.
This is where legal analysis meets raw courtroom chaos.
Welcome to the Zone of Risk.
Watch the full video episode on YouTube:
https://youtu.be/ZCI3FHTg_tM
🔗 Connect with the Hosts:
Joni Mosely – TheMoselyFirm.com
Spencer Charif – CharifLaw.com
Hey folks. Robert here. I have decided to step away from the podcast for an indeterminate period of time. Thank you for listening and for your support.
🔗 Connect with the Hosts:
Joni Mosely – TheMoselyFirm.com
Spencer Charif – CharifLaw.com
Melanie Kalmanson, a partner at Quarlers & Brady, joined Robert to discuss a new Florida statute that requires judges to impose a sentence of death if an "unauthorized alien" commits a capital offense. Melanie and Robert examine potential constitutional issues the law faces under current Supreme Court precedent and how the law will be challenging for trial courts to implement.
921.1426 Sentence of death for capital offense committed by unauthorized alien. —Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, the court shall sentence a defendant who is an unauthorized alien and who is convicted or adjudicated guilty of a capital felony to a sentence of death. As used in this section, the term “unauthorized alien” has the same meaning as in s. 908.111.
Subscribe to Melanie's substack - Tracking Florida's Death Penalty.
Read the full text of the statute here.
Please send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.
Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services. The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice. You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer. The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers. This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only. Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.
🔗 Connect with the Hosts:
Joni Mosely – TheMoselyFirm.com
Spencer Charif – CharifLaw.com
On February 6, Robert debated Judge Adam Tanenbaum (First DCA) about whether the prior-panel rule applies in the DCAs. The rule requires 3-judge appellate panels to follow prior-panel precedent unless the court overrules the prior precedent en banc or the precedent has been overruled by the Florida Supreme Court.
Robert is a proponent of the rule, which he argues flows from Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.331 (the en banc rule) and is supported by Florida Supreme Court precedent.
Judge Tanenbaum is an opponent of the rule, which he argues has no basis in law and is contrary to article V, section 4(a) of Florida's Constitution.
Robert co-authored an article in The Florida Bar Journal explaining his position. Judge Tanenbaum's position is best articulated in his concurring opinions in Normandy Ins. Co. v. Bouayad, 372 So. 3d 671 (Fla. 1st DCA 2023) (en banc), review granted, No. SC2023-1576, 2024 WL 4449458 (Fla. Oct. 9, 2024) and BAM Trading Servs. Inc. v. Off. of Fin. Regul., 395 So. 3d 687 (Fla. 1st DCA 2024) (en banc).
Thanks to the Hillsborough County Bar Association for hosting the event and to David Costello of the Florida Office of the Attorney General and Dimitri Peteves of Creed and Gowdy P.A. for an amazing job organizing and moderating the debate.
Please send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.
Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services. The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice. You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer. The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers. This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only. Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.
🔗 Connect with the Hosts:
Joni Mosely – TheMoselyFirm.com
Spencer Charif – CharifLaw.com
Aliza Shatzman joined Robert on this episode. Aliza is the President and Founder of the Legal Accountability Project. The Project’s mission is to "ensure law clerks have positive clerkship experiences, while extending support and resources to those who do not." Aliza shared her experience as a law clerk and explained the Project’s great resources for future law clerks. She and Robert also discussed the kerfuffle at a recent federalist society event where two judges from the Fifth Circuit and Professor Steve Vladeck went a few rounds on judicial independence.
Follow Aliza on LinkedIn. Watch the FedSoc debate here.
Thank You SponsorsThis podcast is supported by Stafi. Stafi provides trained, vetted, and experienced virtual legal assistants and paralegals who will take routine tasks off your plate so you can focus on growing your firm and maximizing revenue. SAVE $500 off your first month with Stafi by using referral code Summarily when you schedule your free initial consultation. Go to getstafi.com/schedule-a-call, select the date and time for your consultation, and enter referral code Summarily on the event details page.
This podcast is also sponsored by BetterHelp and The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A. Use the link BetterHelp.com/Summarily for 10% off your first month of BetterHelp.
Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.
Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services. The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice. You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer. The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers. This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only. Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.
🔗 Connect with the Hosts:
Joni Mosely – TheMoselyFirm.com
Spencer Charif – CharifLaw.com
Lindsey, Joni, and Robert rundown several appellate opinions from October 2024.
Contact to get on the Guardian ad Litem pro bono mailing list: Samuel Alexander samuel@alexanderappeals.com.
- In re: Amends. to R. Regulating Fla. Bar 6-10.3, FSC (CLE credit for pro bono hours).
- McLane Foodservice Inc., v. Wool, 3d DCA (punitive damages).
- BAM Trading Servs., Inc. v. Florida, Off. Fin. Regul., 1st DCA (en banc) (prior panel rule; judicial review of emergency suspension orders).
- Wheeler v. Dovey, 2d DCA (attorneys’ fees).
- Ragan v. State, 3d DCA (single-homicide rule; double jeopardy).
- Sills v. Motor Care Concepts, II, 6th DCA (timeliness of motion for rehearing).
- United States v. Maher, 2d Circuit (Fourth Amendment; private search doctrine).
- Davis v. State, 1st DCA (competency hearings; fundamental error).
Thank You SponsorsThis podcast is supported by Stafi. Stafi provides trained, vetted, and experienced virtual legal assistants and paralegals who will take routine tasks off your plate so you can focus on growing your firm and maximizing revenue. SAVE $500 off your first month with Stafi by using referral code Summarily when you schedule your free initial consultation. Go to getstafi.com/schedule-a-call, select the date and time for your consultation, and enter referral code Summarily on the event details page.
This podcast is also sponsored by BetterHelp and The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A. Use the link BetterHelp.com/Summarily for 10% off your first month of BetterHelp.
Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.
Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services. The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice. You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer. The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers. This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only. Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.
🔗 Connect with the Hosts:
Joni Mosely – TheMoselyFirm.com
Spencer Charif – CharifLaw.com
Joni and Robert were joined by Florida Bar President Roland Sanchez-Medina, Jr. They discussed President Sanchez-Medina's path to the law, his vision for the Bar, and what he is doing to make the practice of law "kinder and gentler."
Thank You SponsorsThis podcast is supported by Stafi. Stafi provides trained, vetted, and experienced virtual legal assistants and paralegals who will take routine tasks off your plate so you can focus on growing your firm and maximizing revenue. SAVE $500 off your first month with Stafi by using referral code Summarily when you schedule your free initial consultation. Go to getstafi.com/schedule-a-call, select the date and time for your consultation, and enter referral code Summarily on the event details page.
This podcast is also sponsored by BetterHelp and The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A. Use the link BetterHelp.com/Summarily for 10% off your first month of BetterHelp.
Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.
Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services. The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice. You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer. The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers. This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only. Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.
🔗 Connect with the Hosts:
Joni Mosely – TheMoselyFirm.com
Spencer Charif – CharifLaw.com
On November 11, 2024, the Miami Herald reported, "Miami Judge's Venomous Texts Come Back to Bite her in Crumbling Death Penalty Case." The article leads of: "An appellate judge at the center of one of Miami’s biggest criminal cases is facing intense scrutiny after text messages were released showing her pressuring Miami-Dade State Attorney Katherine Fernandez Rundle about how to handle the case, denigrating defense attorneys and badmouthing local judges."
Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalist, Brittany Wallman, who co-authored the article with Charles Rabin for the Herald, joined Robert to discuss the backstory of the capital murder case and the text messages between Judge Bronwyn Miller and State Attorney Katherine Fernandez Rundle. In one text message, Judge Miller suggested to the State Attorney that she move to disqualify the trial judge handling the resentencing of the defendant, Corey Smith, so the trial judge's decision to remove two assistant state attorneys from the case for prosecutorial misconduct could be reconsidered.
- Miami Gangster's Life Could be Spared After Prosecutor Misconduct Undermines Murder Case
- Miami Judge's Venomous Texts Come Back to Bite her in Crumbling Death Penalty Case
- State no Longer Seeking Death Penalty in Trial of Convicted Gang Leader and Murderer
Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services. The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice. You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer. The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers. This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only. Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.
🔗 Connect with the Hosts:
Joni Mosely – TheMoselyFirm.com
Spencer Charif – CharifLaw.com
Jennifer Opinion is leaving the podcast (hopefully not forever) to attend to family matters. Before she signs off, she shares her expertise about PIP and insurance law. She and Robert discusses several DCA opinions from August, September, and October.
We thank Jen for her commitment to the podcast and to the members of the Florida Bar.
Progressive Select Ins. Co. v. Hilchey, 2d DCA (jurisdiction to decide dec actions).
Fojon v. Ascendant Com. Ins. Co., 3d DCA (policy defenses vs. coverage defenses).
Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Walden, 3d DCA (pre-suit notice in dec actions).
United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Coral Gables Chiropractic PLLC, 3d DCA (attorneys' fees).
Buis v. Universal Prop. Cas. Ins. Co., 2d DCA (retroactivity of presuit notice).
Hernandez v. Heritage Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 3d DCA (hearings on SMJ).
Alvarez, Feltman & Da Silva, P.L. v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 3d DCA (two-dismissal rule).
Thank You SponsorsThis podcast is supported by Stafi. Stafi provides trained, vetted, and experienced virtual legal assistants and paralegals who will take routine tasks off your plate so you can focus on growing your firm and maximizing revenue. SAVE $500 off your first month with Stafi by using referral code Summarily when you schedule your free initial consultation. Go to getstafi.com/schedule-a-call, select the date and time for your consultation, and enter referral code Summarily on the event details page.
This podcast is also sponsored by BetterHelp and The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A. Use the link BetterHelp.com/Summarily for 10% off your first month of BetterHelp.
Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.
Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services. The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice. You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer. The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers. This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only. Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.
🔗 Connect with the Hosts:
Joni Mosely – TheMoselyFirm.com
Spencer Charif – CharifLaw.com
Professor Harold Krent joined Robert to discuss major cases at the U.S. Supreme Court.
Garland v. VanDerStok, (ghost guns) (oral argument).
E.M.D. Sales, Inc. v. Carrera, (burden of proof in FLSA litigation).
Ames v. Ohio Dep't of Youth Servs., ("majority" plaintiffs burden of proof under Title VII).
United States v. Skrmetti, (medical treatment for transgender children).
Thank You SponsorsThis podcast is supported by Stafi. Stafi provides trained, vetted, and experienced virtual legal assistants and paralegals who will take routine tasks off your plate so you can focus on growing your firm and maximizing revenue. SAVE $500 off your first month with Stafi by using referral code Summarily when you schedule your free initial consultation. Go to getstafi.com/schedule-a-call, select the date and time for your consultation, and enter referral code Summarily on the event details page.
This podcast is also sponsored by BetterHelp and The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A. Use the link BetterHelp.com/Summarily for 10% off your first month of BetterHelp.
Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.
Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services. The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice. You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer. The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers. This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only. Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.
🔗 Connect with the Hosts:
Joni Mosely – TheMoselyFirm.com
Spencer Charif – CharifLaw.com
Robert, Lindsey, and Joni recap several recent DCA opinions.
Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Walden, 3DCA (first impression, presuit under section 627.70125, certiorari).
State v. Myers, 3DCA (Miranda).
Pacheco v. Jinete, 3d DCA (residency requirement for elected office).
Beans v. Beans, 1st DCA (modification to alimony).
Julia v. Ramos-Baez, 6DCA (attorneys’ fees under 61.16) (creating split among DCAs).
Cowins v. State, 4th DCA (PTSD; self-defense).
Thank You SponsorsThis podcast is supported by Stafi. Stafi provides trained, vetted, and experienced virtual legal assistants and paralegals who will take routine tasks off your plate so you can focus on growing your firm and maximizing revenue. SAVE $500 off your first month with Stafi by using referral code Summarily when you schedule your free initial consultation. Go to getstafi.com/schedule-a-call, select the date and time for your consultation, and enter referral code Summarily on the event details page.
This podcast is also sponsored by BetterHelp and The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A. Use the link BetterHelp.com/Summarily for 10% off your first month of BetterHelp.
Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.
Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services. The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice. You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer. The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers. This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only. Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.
🔗 Connect with the Hosts:
Joni Mosely – TheMoselyFirm.com
Spencer Charif – CharifLaw.com
Adam Unikowsky is a Partner at Jenner & Block. He is at the forefront of thinking about the use of AI in the law. Adam is a graduate of MIT and Harvard Law. He focuses on appellate and Supreme Court practice in the areas of securities litigation, Indian law, patents, civil procedure, and constitutional law.
Check out Adam's substack articles on AI: In AI we Trust (Part 1) & In AI we Trust (Part 2).
Snell v. United Specialty Ins. Co. (11th Cir.)
Thank You SponsorsThis podcast is supported by Stafi. Stafi provides trained, vetted, and experienced virtual legal assistants and paralegals who will take routine tasks off your plate so you can focus on growing your firm and maximizing revenue. SAVE $500 off your first month with Stafi by using referral code Summarily when you schedule your free initial consultation. Go to getstafi.com/schedule-a-call, select the date and time for your consultation, and enter referral code Summarily on the event details page.
This podcast is also sponsored by BetterHelp and The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A. Use the link BetterHelp.com/Summarily for 10% off your first month of BetterHelp.
Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.
Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services. The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice. You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer. The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers. This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only. Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.
Jennifer joined Robert to run throw opinions from June and July.
- Health and Wellness Evolution Co. V. Infinity Auto Ins. Co., 3d DCA (EUO; hearsay).
- Crown Asset Mgmt., LLC v. Bribiesca, 3d DCA (small-claims rules).
- Sch. Bd. of Broward Cnty., FL. v. State Farm Mutual Auto Ins. Co., 4th DCA (reimbursement under section 627.7405).
- Auto Club Ins. Co. of FL. v. Express Care of Belleview, LLC (Eileen Fonti), 5th DCA; Auto Club Ins. Co. of FL. v. Express Care of Belleview, LLC (Helmut J. Meven), 5th DCA (fee schedule).
- USAA Cas. Ins. Co. v. Emergency Res. Grp., et al., 5th DCA (deductible election).
Thank You SponsorsThis podcast is supported by Stafi. Stafi provides trained, vetted, and experienced virtual legal assistants and paralegals who will take routine tasks off your plate so you can focus on growing your firm and maximizing revenue. SAVE $500 off your first month with Stafi by using referral code Summarily when you schedule your free initial consultation. Go to getstafi.com/schedule-a-call, select the date and time for your consultation, and enter referral code Summarily on the event details page.
This podcast is also sponsored by BetterHelp and The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A. Use the link BetterHelp.com/Summarily for 10% off your first month of BetterHelp.
Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.
Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services. The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice. You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer. The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers. This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only. Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.
Professor Harold Krent of the Chicago-Kent College of Law sat down with Robert to discuss the Court's decisions in United States v. Rahimi and Garland v. Cargill, and how Rahimi shows the Court's current iteration of "originalism" does not constrain judges. Rather, it is used as a tool to achieve a desired outcome.
Thank You SponsorsThis podcast is supported by Stafi. Stafi provides trained, vetted, and experienced virtual legal assistants and paralegals who will take routine tasks off your plate so you can focus on growing your firm and maximizing revenue. SAVE $500 off your first month with Stafi by using referral code Summarily when you schedule your free initial consultation. Go to getstafi.com/schedule-a-call, select the date and time for your consultation, and enter referral code Summarily on the event details page.
This podcast is also sponsored by BetterHelp and The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A. Use the link BetterHelp.com/Summarily for 10% off your first month of BetterHelp.
Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.
Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services. The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice. You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer. The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers. This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only. Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.
Robert and Lindsey recap opinions from the DCAs, the Florida Supreme Court, and the 11th Circuit.
- In re: Amends. to Fla. R. Civ. P 1.110.
- In re: Amends. to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.200, 1.201, 1.280, 1.440, & 1.460.
- In re: Amends to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510 and New Rule 1.202.
- In re: Amends. to Fla. R. App. P. 9.130.
- BAM Trading Servs., Inc. v. Florida Off. of Fin. Regul., 1st DCA (intra-district conflict); see also A Not-So-Little Problem with Precedent: Intra-District Conflict in Florida District Courts of Appeal, Robert Scavone Jr., et al.
- Ripple v. CBS Corp., FSC (surviving spouse under Florida’s wrongful death act).
- Harrell v. Friend, 1st DCA (modification of timesharing based on substantial change in circumstances).
- Askew v. Fla. Dep’t Child. & Fams., FSC (misapplication jurisdiction).
- Fluhart v. Rasmussen, 5th DCA (preservation; failure to move to vacate magistrate's order).
- Pradaxay v. Kendrick, 6th DCA (med mal presuit; expert's specialty).
- Lange v. Houston Cnty. Ga., 11th Cir. (liability under Title VII for denying gender-affirming care).
- State v. Times, 1st DCA (4th Amendment; knock-and-announce).
- State v. Creller, FSC (Fourth Amendment; traffic stops).
This podcast is supported by Stafi. Stafi provides trained, vetted, and experienced virtual legal assistants and paralegals. SAVE $500 off your first month by using referral code Summarily. Go to getstafi.com/schedule-a-call, select the date/time for your consultation, and enter referral code Summarily on the event details page.
This podcast is also sponsored by BetterHelp. Use the link BetterHelp.com/Summarily for 10% off your first month of BetterHelp.
Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.
Robert sat down with Erin Chlopak, Senior Director of Campaign Finance at the Campaign Legal Center, to set the record straight about whether Vice President Harris will be able to use funds raised by the Biden/Harris campaign. Erin also explains why republican threats to sue to prevent VP Harris from using the funds are ill-conceived.
Before joining CLC, Erin spent nearly a decade working on a wide range of campaign finance issues in the Federal Election Commission’s Office of General Counsel. From 2017 to 2018, Erin led the FEC’s Policy Division, overseeing all legal recommendations regarding FEC regulations, advisory opinions, and other legal policy guidance. From 2009 to 2017, Erin served as an attorney and then as assistant general counsel in the FEC’s Litigation Division.
Thank You SponsorsThis podcast is supported by Stafi. Stafi provides trained, vetted, and experienced virtual legal assistants and paralegals who will take routine tasks off your plate so you can focus on growing your firm and maximizing revenue. SAVE $500 off your first month with Stafi by using referral code Summarily when you schedule your free initial consultation. Go to getstafi.com/schedule-a-call, select the date and time for your consultation, and enter referral code Summarily on the event details page.
This podcast is also sponsored by BetterHelp and The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A. Use the link BetterHelp.com/Summarily for 10% off your first month of BetterHelp.
Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.
Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services. The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice. You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer. The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers. This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only. Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.
Robert discussed three important Supreme Court opinions handed down in late June and early July with administrative law experts Professor Harold Krent of the Chicago Kent College of Law, and Professor Lisa Heinzerling, the Justice William J. Brennen Jr. Professor of Law at Georgetown Law.
Hal and Lisa explain how Loper Bright v. Raimondo, SEC v. Jarkesy, and Corner Post v. Board of Governs are likely to change the practice of administrative law.
Our SponsorsThis podcast is supported by Stafi. Stafi provides trained, vetted, and experienced virtual legal assistants and paralegals who will take routine tasks off your plate so you can focus on growing your firm and maximizing revenue. SAVE $500 off your first month with Stafi by using referral code Summarily when you schedule your free initial consultation. Go to getstafi.com/schedule-a-call, select the date and time for your consultation, and enter referral code Summarily on the event details page.
This podcast is also sponsored by BetterHelp and The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A. Use the link BetterHelp.com/Summarily for 10% off your first month of BetterHelp.
Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.
Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services. The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice. You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer. The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers. This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only. Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.
Co-host Jennifer Opiola joined Robert to review recent PIP and insurance law opinions issued by the Florida DCAs.
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Revival Chiropractic, LLC., FSC (PIP fee schedule); see also Progressive American Ins. Co., v. Express Care of Belleview, 5th DCA).
- Finell v. Florida Ins. Guar. Ass'n, Inc., 4th DCA (EUOs).
- HCA Health Servs. of Fla., Inc. v. Jo Ann Berlin, M.D., 4th DCA (jurisdiction; fee hearings).
- Lassiter v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Co., 2d DCA (SMJ; dueling affidavits).
- Hamilton v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 3d DCA (cert review of discovery order; depos; refreshing recollection; privilege).
- Cent. Fla. Med. & Chiropractic Ctr. v. Mendota Ins. Co., 5th DCA (PIP suit over $0.02).
Update: Conflict certified in Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Laguna Riviera Condo. Ass'n Inc., 2d DCA with Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Grove Isle at Vero Beach Condo. Ass'n, 4th DCA (retroactivity of statute).
Our SponsorsThis podcast is supported by Stafi. Stafi provides trained, vetted, and experienced virtual legal assistants and paralegals who will take routine tasks off your plate so you can focus on growing your firm and maximizing revenue. SAVE $500 off your first month with Stafi by using referral code Summarily when you schedule your free initial consultation. Go to getstafi.com/schedule-a-call, select the date and time for your consultation, and enter referral code Summarily on the event details page.
This podcast is also sponsored by BetterHelp and The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A. Use the link BetterHelp.com/Summarily for 10% off your first month of BetterHelp.
Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.
Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services. The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice. You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer. The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers. This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only. Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.
This is a special edition to explore the Supreme Court's opinion in Trump v. United States,the presidential immunity case. The Supreme Court Monday granted former presidents absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his "conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority," and presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. The devil is in the details.
I spoke with Professor Harold Krent from the Chicago-Kent College of Law, and former federal prosecutor David Weinstein, a partner at Jones Walker. Hal and I talked about the demerits of the opinion, and David and I discussed what the opinion means for the 3 open criminal cases against the former president.
Our SponsorsThis podcast is supported by Stafi. Stafi provides trained, vetted, and experienced virtual legal assistants and paralegals who will take routine tasks off your plate so you can focus on growing your firm and maximizing revenue. SAVE $500 off your first month with Stafi by using referral code Summarily when you schedule your free initial consultation. Go to getstafi.com/schedule-a-call, select the date and time for your consultation, and enter referral code Summarily on the event details page.
This podcast is also sponsored by BetterHelp and The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A. Use the link BetterHelp.com/Summarily for 10% off your first month of BetterHelp.
Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.
Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services. The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice. You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer. The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers. This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only. Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.
Jury selection is the most important part of a trial. Many cases are won and lost during jury selection. On this episode, Robert and special guest host Joni Mosely spoke with Dr. Melissa Pigott about the psychology of jury selection and why it is important to understand prospective jurors’ values, attitudes, and beliefs.
This episode is approved by The Florida Bar for 1 hour of general CLE credit. The course number is provided towards the end of the episode.
Dr. Pigott is a nationally recognized social psychologist and is considered one of the foremost experts in jury, litigation, and ADR research. She is the co-founder and director of research of Magnus Research Consultants. Dr. Pigott has selected more than 200 juries and performed thousands of hours of mock jury studies.
Our Sponsors
This podcast is supported by Stafi. Stafi provides trained, vetted, and experienced virtual legal assistants and paralegals who will take routine tasks off your plate so you can focus on growing your firm and maximizing revenue. SAVE $500 off your first month with Stafi by using referral code Summarily when you schedule your free initial consultation. Go to getstafi.com/schedule-a-call, select the date and time for your consultation, and enter referral code Summarily on the event details page.
This podcast is also sponsored by BetterHelp and The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A. Use the link BetterHelp.com/Summarily for 10% off your first month of BetterHelp.
Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.
Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services. The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice. You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer. The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers. This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only. Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.
Robert spoke with Professor Courtney Cahill about the recent Florida Supreme Court opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Florida. The court held that the Florida Constitution's privacy provision does not protect a woman's right to have an abortion. The U.S. Supreme Court's opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization played a major role in the Florida Supreme Court's analysis.
Professor Cahill is the Chancellor’s Professor of Law and the University of California, Irvine School of Law. Professor Cahill is a scholar of constitutional law, anti-discrimination law, sex equality, and LGBTQ equality. Her forthcoming projects include a series of essays on constitutional sex equality—including the constitutional sex equality argument for abortion. She is also working on a new book called Busted, which will explore the vast network of laws that subject girls and women to criminal penalties for going topless in public and sometimes in the home.
Thank you for listening. Please share the podcast with your friends and colleagues, and rate and review the show.
Summarily is sponsored by BetterHelp and The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A. Click the BetterHelp link (BetterHelp.com/Summarily) for 10% off your first month of BetterHelp.
Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.
Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services. The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice. You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer. The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers. This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only. Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.
Robert and Lindsey break down a bunch of appellate opinions. The criminal opinions begin at 25:45.
CIVIL OPINIONSNeighborhood Restaurant Partners v. Wolff, 5th DCA (improper comment; mistrial; bar referral).
Haslauer v. Haslauer, 1st DCA (61.16 fees).
The Walsh Grp. v. Zion Jacksonville, 5th DCA (striking supplemental authority).
Guardianship of Jacquelyn Anne Faircloth v. Main St. Ent., Inc, FSC (comparative fault; dram-shop law).
Dunmar Est. Homeowner’s Ass'n v. Rembert, 5th DCA (compliance with statutory requirement to mediate before suit; certiorari).
Lee County v. Dean Wish, LLC, 6th DCA (cf. signal).
CRIMINAL OPINIONS
Gullo v. State, 5th DCA (min mans; consecutive sentences).
R.V. v. State, 3d DCA (authentication; pictorial testimony theory; silent-witness theory).
Stafford v. State, 5th DCA (improper comment in closing).
Paese v. State, 4th DCA (stand-your-ground immunity).
Thank you for listening. Please share the podcast with your friends and colleagues, and rate and review the show.
Summarily is sponsored by BetterHelp and The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A. Click the BetterHelp link (BetterHelp.com/Summarily) for 10% off your first month of BetterHelp.
Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.
Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services. The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice. You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer. The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers. This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only. Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.
The testimony is over in the NY criminal trial against defendant Trump. The jury will hear closing arguments next week and begin deliberations. But questions remain. What will the jury be asked to decide? Will the verdict form include the lesser-include offense of falsifying business records in the second degree? Both sides have a strategic decision to make.
Robert sat down the retired NY Supreme Court Justice Ethan Greenberg to talk about these and other unresolved legal issues in the case. Ethan is a shareholder at Anderson Kill in New York, where he co-chairs the firm’s Government Enforcement, Internal Investigation and White-Collar Defense Practice Group. His most recent piece in the WSJ, published on May 19, is entitled The Big Decision Before the Trump Verdict: Whether the jury weighs misdemeanor charges could affect both the outcome and the appeal.
Thank you for listening. Please share the podcast with your friends and colleagues, and rate and review the show.
Summarily is sponsored by BetterHelp and The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A. Click the BetterHelp link (BetterHelp.com/Summarily) for 10% off your first month of BetterHelp.
Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.
Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services. The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice. You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer. The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers. This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only. Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.
Robert had the pleasure of sitting down with the estimable Roger Parloff to discuss the unending delays in the classified documents case against the former president. Roger and Robert also talked about the latest in the Manhattan case against defendant Trump.
Roger is an award-winning journalist and a senior editor of Lawfare. He has his fingers on the pulse of the classified documents case and he, along with the rest of the team at Lawfare, have a series of ongoing episodes called Trump’s Trials and Tribulations. In the N.Y. Dispatch episodes, Lawfare covers the day-to-day happenings in the Manhattan case and provides first-hand accounts of witness testimony in the case.
Thank you for listening. Please share the podcast with your friends and colleagues, and rate and review the show.
Summarily is sponsored by BetterHelp and The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A. Click the BetterHelp link (BetterHelp.com/Summarily) for 10% off your first month of BetterHelp.
Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.
Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services. The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice. You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer. The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers. This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only. Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.
On April 24th, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in United States v. Trump. The questions presented is "whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office."
Professor Harold Krent of the Chicago-Kent College of Law joined Robert to discuss the oral argument and what the justices were interested in. Professor Krent's expertise includes appellate courts; constitutional law; courts and judges; and the U.S. Supreme Court.
OA audio and transcript.
Thank you for listening. Please share the podcast with your friends and colleagues, and rate and review the show.
Summarily is sponsored by BetterHelp and The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A. Click the BetterHelp link (BetterHelp.com/Summarily) for 10% off your first month of BetterHelp.
Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.
Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services. The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice. You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer. The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers. This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only. Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.
How did the Supreme Court become so powerful? Dr. Ben Johnson contends that a "little-known rule change" and the Court's unkept promise in 1928 are to blame.
Dr. Johnson is an associate professor of law at the University of Florida Levin College of Law. He sat down with Robert to talk about the Court's question-selection process and how being able to "cherry-pick" legal questions has "transform[ed] the Court from a tribunal deciding cases into a super-legislator with little accountability."
Dr. Johnson has written on this topic in the Columbia Law Review and for The Atlantic.
Dr. Johnson and Robert also discussed originalism and how the current conservative justices on the Court have been unfaithful to the "history and tradition" approach they so frequently espouse.
Thank you for listening. Please share the podcast with your friends and colleagues, and rate and review the show.
Summarily is sponsored by BetterHelp and The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A. Click the BetterHelp link (BetterHelp.com/Summarily) for 10% off your first month of BetterHelp.Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.
Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services. The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice. You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer. The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers. This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only. Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.
Co-host Jennifer Opiola joined Robert to review PIP and insurance opinions issued by the Florida DCAs in March.
- Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., v. laguna Riviera Condo. Ass’n, Inc., 2D DCA (retroactivity of § 627.714(4)).
- Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Avril and Romain, 4th DCA (deductible as an affirmative defense).
- Arway v. Progressive Amer. Ins. Co., 6th DCA (statute of limitations defeated by policy language).
- Envision Physical Therapy, Inc. v. Geico Gen. Ins. Co., 3d DCA (exhaustion and bad faith).
Summarily is sponsored by BetterHelp and The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A. Click the BetterHelp link (BetterHelp.com/Summarily) for 10% off your first month of BetterHelp.Thank you for listening. Please share the podcast with your friends and colleagues, and rate and review the show.
Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.
Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services. The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice. You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer. The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers. This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only. Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.
Equality Florida sued Governor DeSantis et al., challenging H.B. 1557 (the "Don't Say Gay" law). The parties recently settled, and Florida agreed to limit the law's scope in significant ways.
Robert is joined by John C. Quinn, a partner at Kaplan Hecker and Fink, and D. Brandon Trice, counsel at Kaplan Hecker and Fink. John and Brandon were part of a team of lawyers, led by Robbie Kaplan, who, along with the National Center for Lesbian Rights, represented Equality Florida.
Documents:
- Second Amended Complaint
- Order Dismissing Second Amended Complaint
- Settlement Agreement
Summarily is sponsored by BetterHelp and The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A. Click the BetterHelp link (BetterHelp.com/Summarily) for 10% off your first month of BetterHelp.Thank you for listening. Please share the podcast with your friends and colleagues, and rate and review the show.
Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.
Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services. The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice. You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer. The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers. This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only. Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or Monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.
Co-host Jennifer Opiola joined Robert to review PIP and insurance opinions issued in February, including one dealing with inconsistent verdicts and another about the retroactivity of the pre-suit demand statute under chapter 627.
- Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Tsirnikas, 2d DCA (inconsistent verdicts); see also Chiarella v. Ford, 4th DCA.
- Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Peipert, 3d DCA (entitlement to prejudgment interest).
- Cantens v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London, 3d DCA (retroactivity of pre-suit demand statute under chapter 627) (certifying conflict with the 6th DCA in Hughes v. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., which certified conflict with the 4th DCA in Cole v. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co.); see also Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v Grove Isle at Vero Beach Condo. Ass'n, 4th DCA.
- Taylor v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 5th DCA (private right of action for interest under chapter 627 vs. contractual right to interest; incorporating statutory language in contracts).
Summarily is sponsored by BetterHelp and The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A. Click the BetterHelp link (BetterHelp.com/Summarily) for 10% off your first month of BetterHelp.Thank you for listening. Please share the podcast with your friends and colleagues, and rate and review the show.
Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.
Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services. The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice. You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer. The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers. This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only. Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.
Are you ready for new rule 1.041 (Notice of Limited Appearance), effective April 1? Tune into this episode to learn what you need to know. Robert and Lindsey also cover several opinions from January.
- In re: Jane Doe 23-B, 1st DCA (judicial waiver).
- Tanner v. Dashner, 4th DCA (single-homicide rule; ex post facto).
- Nelson v. State, 5th DCA (judge's comments at sentencing).
- Tesla v. Monserratt, 4th DCA (apex doctrine).
- John Knox Village of Cent. Fla., Inc. v. Est. of Alma Jane Lawrence, 5th DCA (amending to add punitive damages).
- Zimmerman v. Florida Gaming Control Commission, 5th DCA (agency's obligation to adhere to prior administrative decision).
- Rule 1.041 (Notice of Limited Appearance).
Summarily is sponsored by BetterHelp and The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A. Click the BetterHelp link (BetterHelp.com/Summarily) for 10% off your first month of BetterHelp.Thank you for listening. Please share the podcast with your friends and colleagues, and rate and review the show.
Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.
Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services. The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice. You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer. The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers. This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only. Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or Monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.
Co-host Jennifer Opiola joined Robert to review PIP opinions issued in January.
- United Auto. Ins. Co. v. ISO Diagnostic Testing, 4th DCA (fee schedule).
- Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Andre, 4th DCA (setting aside default).
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Matthews, 5th DCA (prejudicial statements and right to fair trial).
- Sulzer v. Amer. Integrity Ins. Co. of Fla., 6th DCA (retroactivity of pre-suit notice statute; certifying conflict with 4th DCA).
Summarily is sponsored by BetterHelp and The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A. Click the BetterHelp link (BetterHelp.com/Summarily) for 10% off your first month of BetterHelp.Thank you for listening. Please share the podcast with your friends and colleagues, and rate and review the show.
Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.
Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services. The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice. You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer. The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers. This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only. Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.
On Tuesday, February 6th, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in United States v. Trump and held that the former president is not immune from criminal prosecution for alleged crimes he committed while in office.
Robert discussed the opinion with constitutional law professor Harold Krent of the Chicago-Kent College of Law.
Summarily is sponsored by BetterHelp and The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A. Click the BetterHelp link (BetterHelp.com/Summarily) for 10% off your first month of BetterHelp.Thank you for listening. Please share the podcast with your friends and colleagues, and rate and review the show.
Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.
Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services. The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice. You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer. The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers. This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only. Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.
Professor Joe Regalia recently joined Robert to discuss how law firms can use generative AI to create and maximize efficiency and what law firms should do to prepare for the future with generative AI.
Joe is an associate professor of law at UNLV’s William S. Boyd School of Law where he teaches legal writing and the intersection between the law and technology. He also leads the training and development team at Write.Law, an online training solution for honing skills like legal writing and legal technology (including generative AI). Joe is a nationally recognized legal writing and technology consultant for law firms, courts, agencies, nonprofits, corporations, and other organizations.
Summarily is sponsored by BetterHelp and The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A. Click the BetterHelp link (BetterHelp.com/Summarily) for 10% off your first month of BetterHelp.Thank you for listening. Please share the podcast with your friends and colleagues, and rate and review the show.
Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.
Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services. The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice. You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer. The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers. This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only. Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.
Co-host Jennifer Opiola joined Robert to review a handful of PIP and insurance opinions issued in December.
- Advance Mold Servs., Inc. v. Universal N. Am. Ins., Co., 3d DCA (dismissal with prejudice).
- Universal Ins. Co. of N. Am. v. Sunset 102 Off. Park Condo. Ass’n, Inc., 3d DCA (untimely motion to amend affirmative defenses; sanctions for spoliation; motion for mistrial).
- People’s Tr. Ins. Co. v. Diaz, 5th DCA (policy endorsements) (creating uniformity with the 3d, 4th, and 6th).
- State Farm Ins. Co. v. James, 5th DCA (policy interpretation).
Summarily is sponsored by BetterHelp and The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A. Click the BetterHelp link (BetterHelp.com/Summarily) for 10% off your first month of BetterHelp.Thank you for listening. Please share the podcast with your friends and colleagues, and rate and review the show.
Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.
Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services. The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice. You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer. The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers. This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only. Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.
On April 16, 1963, at just thirty-four years of age and five years before his life was cut short by an assassin, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. penned from a jail cell, the most powerful, persuasive, and poetic message ever written: Letter From Birmingham Jail.
In honor of Dr. King and in celebration of his birthday, this is the audio of the Letter, read by Dr. King. What would have been had he lived?
This is perhaps the most stirring and compelling passage of the Letter:
We have waited for more than 340 years for our constitutional and God given rights. The nations of Asia and Africa are moving with jetlike speed toward gaining political independence, but we still creep at horse and buggy pace toward gaining a cup of coffee at a lunch counter. Perhaps it is easy for those who have never felt the stinging darts of segregation to say, “Wait.” But when you have seen vicious mobs lynch your mothers and fathers at will and drown your sisters and brothers at whim; when you have seen hate filled policemen curse, kick and even kill your black brothers and sisters; when you see the vast majority of your twenty million Negro brothers smothering in an airtight cage of poverty in the midst of an affluent society; when you suddenly find your tongue twisted and your speech stammering as you seek to explain to your six year old daughter why she can’t go to the public amusement park that has just been advertised on television, and see tears welling up in her eyes when she is told that Funtown is closed to colored children, and see ominous clouds of inferiority beginning to form in her little mental sky, and see her beginning to distort her personality by developing an unconscious bitterness toward white people; when you have to concoct an answer for a five year old son who is asking: “Daddy, why do white people treat colored people so mean?”; when you take a cross county drive and find it necessary to sleep night after night in the uncomfortable corners of your automobile because no motel will accept you; when you are humiliated day in and day out by nagging signs reading “white” and “colored”; when your first name becomes “nigger,” your middle name becomes “boy” (however old you are) and your last name becomes “John,” and your wife and mother are never given the respected title “Mrs.”; when you are harried by day and haunted by night by the fact that you are a Negro, living constantly at tiptoe stance, never quite knowing what to expect next, and are plagued with inner fears and outer resentments; when you are forever fighting a degenerating sense of “nobodiness”—then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait. There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over, and men are no longer willing to be plunged into the abyss of despair. I hope, sirs, you can understand our legitimate and unavoidable impatience.
Goodbye 2023. Hello 2024. Robert and Lindsey rundown a handful of opinions and appellate rule changes from December.
D.A.N. v. State, 1st DCA (attorney sanctions).
Lapham v. Walgreens, 11th Cir (retaliation claims under the FMLA and Florida’s private sector whistleblowers act).
Orozco v. Rodriguez, 6th DCA (standing to seek paternity determination).
Seadler v. Marina Bay Resort Condo. Assoc., Inc., FSC (relief from erroneous denial of cause challenge).
McGothin v. McDonald, 5th DCA (claim for punitive damages).
Ramos v. Steak N Shake, Inc., 2d DCA (pleading standard under FCRA).
Florida BC Holdings, LLC v. Reese, 6th DCA (impact rule).
In re: Amends. to Fla. R. App. P. 9.020 & 9.400.
In re: Amend. to Fla. R. App. P. 9.130.
Summarily is sponsored by BetterHelp and The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A. Click the BetterHelp link (BetterHelp.com/Summarily) for 10% off your first month of BetterHelp.Thank you for listening. Please share the podcast with your friends and colleagues, and rate and review the show.
Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.
Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services. The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice. You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer. The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers. This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only. Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or Monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.
In April 2023, Dr. Ellen Hendriksen joined Robert to discuss Imposter Syndrome and how it can negatively affect your mental health. Dr. Hendriksen is back to kick of the new year. She sat down with Robert to talk about how overidentification and perfectionism can diminish your self-worth.
Dr. Hendriksen is a clinical psychologist. She serves on the faculty at Boston University's Center for Anxiety and Related Disorders (CARD) and is the author of How to be Yourself: Quiet Your Inner Critic and Rise Above Social Anxiety. She earned her Ph.D. at UCLA and completed her training at Harvard Medical School.
You can follow her work at ellenhendriksen.com. And she has a wonderful substack: How to be Good to Yourself When You’re Hard on Yourself.
Summarily is sponsored by BetterHelp and The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A. Click the BetterHelp link (BetterHelp.com/Summarily) for 10% off your first month of BetterHelp.Thank you for listening. Please share the podcast with your friends and colleagues, and rate and review the show.
Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.
Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services. The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice. You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer. The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers. This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only. Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or Monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.
Happy Holidays!
In March 2022, Judge Adalberto Jordan of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit and Judge Kevin Emas of Florida's Third District Court of Appeal sat down with Robert to talk about legal writing. They gave their views from the bench on what makes legal writing good (and not so good).
Whether you are new to Summarily or an avid listener, you do not want to miss what the judges have to say.
Summarily will be back with new episodes in 2024! Stay tuned.
Summarily is sponsored by BetterHelp and The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A. Click the BetterHelp link (BetterHelp.com/Summarily) for 10% off your first month of BetterHelp.Thank you for listening. Please share the podcast with your friends and colleagues, and rate and review the show.
Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com. Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services. The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice. You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer. The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers. This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only. Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or Monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.
Robert and Lindsey play catchup for October and November.
- Kenney v. State, 2d DCA (preservation; impeachment).
- Baxter v. State, 5th DCA (4th Amendment). See Owens v. State, 317 So. 3d 1218 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021) (“regardless of whether the smell of marijuana is indistinguishable from that of hemp, the smell . . . from a vehicle continues to provide probable cause for a warrantless search of the vehicle”).
- Freeman v. State, 1st DCA (stand your ground).
- Parson v. State, 1st DCA (ordering trial court to issue order to explain reasoning).
- Rivera v. State, 4th DCA (“pre-trying”).
- Normandy Ins. Co. v. Bouayad, 1st DCA (prior panel rule). See A Not-so-Little Problem with Precedent: Intra-District Conflict in Florida District Courts of Appeal (by Kimberly Kanoff Berman, Adam Richardson, and Robert Scavone Jr.).
- Nepola v. Nepola, 4th DCA (en banc) (child support guidelines).
- Green v. State, 5th DCA (newly discovered evidence).
- Citizens of Florida v. Clark, FSC (preservation; rule 1.530).
- Aileen and Samuels v. Univ. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 4th DCA (preservation; objection to verdict form).
- Pine v. Pine, 4th DCA (attorneys’ fees)
- Kuschnitzky v. Marasco, 1st DCA (injunction for protection against sexual violence).
Summarily is sponsored by BetterHelp and The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A. **Click the BetterHelp link (BetterHelp.com/Summarily) for 10% off your first month of BetterHelp.
Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services. The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice. You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer. The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers. This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only. Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monet
Co-host, Jennifer Opiola, joined Robert to review a handful of opinions from November dealing with a variety of important issues:
- Homeowners Choice Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., Inc. v. Thompson, 1st DCA (discovery).
- Hughes v. Univ. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 6th DCA (pre-suit notice; substance vs. procedure).
- People’s Tr. Ins. Co. v. Gunsser, 6th DCA (policy exclusions).
Summarily is sponsored by BetterHelp and The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A. Click the BetterHelp link (BetterHelp.com/Summarily) for 10% off your first month of BetterHelp.Thank you for listening. Please share the podcast with your friends and colleagues, and rate and review the show.
Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.
Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services. The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice. You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer. The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers. This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only. Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.
The 100th EpisodeI started this podcast with the goal of providing lawyers with free CLE courses, caselaw updates, and practice tips, and that is what’s in store on this episode. I sat down with Jeffery DeSousa, the Chief Deputy Solicitor General in the Florida Attorney General’s Office to talk about oral Advocacy.
Jeff focuses on criminal appeals and constitutional litigation, primarily in the U.S. and Florida Supreme Courts, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeal, and the Florida district courts. A graduate of Georgetown Law, Jeff has worked on hundreds of appellate cases and presented oral argument in approximately 70, including 17 in the Florida Supreme Court.
Summarily is sponsored by BetterHelp and The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A. Click the BetterHelp link (BetterHelp.com/Summarily) for 10% off your first month of BetterHelp.Thank you for listening. Please share the podcast with your friends and colleagues, and rate and review the show.
Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.
Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services. The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice. You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer. The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers. This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only. Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.
Richard W. Painter joined Robert to discuss the U.S. Supreme Court's new code of conduct, which outlines how the justices "should" conduct themselves.
Richard served as chief ethics lawyer to President George W. Bush and as Associate Counsel in the White House Counsel’s Office during the Bush administration. He has testified many times before Congress on issues related to ethics in government. His forthcoming article SCOTUS House: Can a Supreme Court Ethics Lawyer and Inspector General Help Get this Fraternity under Control examines recent ethics scandals at the high court and outlines how a supreme court inspector general and congress can assure the justices uphold their duty to be faithful to the law. Richard teaches at the University of Minnesota Law School.
Summarily is sponsored by BetterHelp and The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A. Click the BetterHelp link (BetterHelp.com/Summarily) for 10% off your first month of BetterHelp.Thank you for listening. Please share the podcast with your friends and colleagues, and rate and review the show.
Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.
Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services. The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice. You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer. The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers. This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only. Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.
The data says the average attention span went from two-a-half minutes in 2003 to forty-seconds by 2020. Diminished attention is particular problematic for lawyers who are bombarded with emails, texts, calls, and social media alerts while trying to work. As our attention span diminishes so, too, does productivity and happiness.
Dr. Gloria Mark joined Robert to talk about our cognitive bandwidth, how we get distracted, what social media is doing to our attention span, and steps lawyers can take to help limit distractions. You can register for Dr. Mark's substack, The Future of Attention, here.
Dr. Mark is Chancellor’s Professor of Informatics at the University of California, Irvine. She received her Ph.D. from Columbia University in psychology and studies the effect of digital media on people’s lives. Her recent book, Attention Span, explores the fundamental shift in how we work in the digital age, why we are distracted, and how we can restore balance, happiness and productivity in our lives.
Summarily is sponsored by BetterHelp and The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A. Click the BetterHelp link (BetterHelp.com/Summarily) for 10% off your first month of BetterHelp.Thank you for listening. Please share the podcast with your friends and colleagues, and rate and review the show.
Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.
Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services. The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice. You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer. The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers. This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only. Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.
Co-host Jennifer Opiola joined Robert to review an important pre-suit demand case, and a cautionary tale about the benefits of motions in limine.
- Citizens Prop. Ins. v. Salazar, 3d DCA (motions in limine).
- Mercury Indem. Co. of Am. v. Cent. Fla. Med. & Chiropractic Ctr., 5th DCA (pre-suit demand letters; safe harbor).
Summarily is sponsored by BetterHelp and The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A. Click the BetterHelp link (BetterHelp.com/Summarily) for 10% off your first month of BetterHelp.Thank you for listening. Please share the podcast with your friends and colleagues, and rate and review the show.
Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.
Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services. The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice. You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer. The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers. This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only. Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.
Litigation often involves expert witnesses. Indeed, many cases rise and fall based on expert testimony. So nailing down what an expert will and will not testify about is critical to success. But deposing experts can be challenging.
On this episode, Robert sat down with Sia Baker-Barnes to discuss deposing expert witnesses. Sia shared her advice on how to prepare for expert depositions and how to conduct depositions with an eye towards cross-examination.
This episode has been approved by The Florida Bar for 1 hour of CLE credit. The course number is provided towards the end of the episode.
Sia is a shareholder at Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A., and is board certified in civil trial practice. She has been practicing law for more than 20 years, and has obtained numerous multi-million dollar verdicts representing plaintiffs in personal injury, medical negligence, and product liability cases.
Summarily is sponsored by BetterHelp and The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A. Click the BetterHelp link (BetterHelp.com/Summarily) for 10% off your first month of BetterHelp.Thank you for listening. Please share the podcast with your friends and colleagues, and rate and review the show.
Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.
Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services. The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice. You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer. The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers. This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only. Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.
Robert and Lindsey review opinions from September.
CPPB, LLC v. Taurus Apopka City Ctr., LLC, 6th DCA (denial of motion to dissolve lis pendens).
Greathouse v. State, 2d DCA (preservation of cause challenge).
Collins v. State, 5th DCA (evidentiary hearing; newly discovered evidence).
Gurolla v. State, 5th DCA (discovery violation).
State v. Victorino and Hunter, 5th DCA (applicability of amended death penalty statute).
In Re: Jane Doe, 5th (judicial waiver where a minor seeks abortion).
T.G. United, Inc. v. AADD Properties, LLC, 5th DCA (eviction proceedings; court registry).
City of Jacksonville v. Jacksonville Hosp. Holdings, L.P., 11th Cir. (voluntary dismissal under rule 41).
Summarily is sponsored by BetterHelp and The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A. Click the BetterHelp link (BetterHelp.com/Summarily) for 10% off your first month of BetterHelp.Thank you for listening. Please share the podcast with your friends and colleagues, and rate and review the show.
Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.
Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services. The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice. You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer. The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers. This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only. Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.
What do judges expect from lawyers? How can lawyers be more effective at hearings and in motion practice? What frustrates judges most? Chief Judge Jack Tuter of the 17th Judicial Circuit joined me to discuss best practices. His valuable insight is something every litigator should hear.
Summarily is sponsored by BetterHelp and The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A. Click the BetterHelp link (BetterHelp.com/Summarily) for 10% off your first month of BetterHelp.Thank you for listening. Please share the podcast with your friends and colleagues, and rate and review the show.
Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.
Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services. The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice. You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer. The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers. This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only. Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.
Co-host, Jennifer Opiola, joined Robert to review a handful of opinions from September dealing with a variety of important issues:
- Monarch Claims Consultants, Inc. v. Cliff Fleming, et. al., (6th DCA) (venue selection clause; severability).
- Synergy Contracting Grp., Inc. v. Homeowners Choice Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., Inc., (2d DCA) (fraud on the court).
- Universal Pro. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Navlen, (4th DCA) (admissibility of expert testimony).
- T.I.O. Med. Intervention, LLC . Liberty Mut. Fire Inc. Co., (4th DCA) (PIP out-of-state policies).
Summarily is sponsored by BetterHelp and The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A. Click the BetterHelp link (BetterHelp.com/Summarily) for 10% off your first month of BetterHelp.Thank you for listening. Please share the podcast with your friends and colleagues, and rate and review the show.
Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.
Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services. The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice. You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer. The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers. This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only. Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.
Adam Feldman, the creator of Empirical SCOTUS, joined Robert to discuss some of the major cases before the Super Supremes this term, including U.S. v Rahimi - a high-stakes Second Amendment case that could radically undercut DOJ's ability to prosecute certain firearm offenses.
- CFPB v. Community Financial Services Association of America
- Acheson Hotels v. Laufer
- Lindke v. Freed
- O'Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier
- U.S. v. Rahimi
- Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo
- Moore v. U.S.
Summarily is sponsored by BetterHelp and The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A. Click the BetterHelp link (BetterHelp.com/Summarily) for 10% off your first month of BetterHelp.Thank you for listening. Please share the podcast with your friends and colleagues. Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.
Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services. The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice. You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer. The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers. This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only. Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.
FREE CLE: The course number is provided towards the end of the episode.
As a lawyer, you have likely participated in mediation. And you have probably seen mediation breakdown. Why? Was your case right for mediation? Were you prepared? Did you prepare your client? What are the keys to successful mediation?
Rodney Romano, the founder of Matrix Mediation, LLC, joined Robert to discuss these topics and more. Rodney is one of the most sought-after neutrals in Florida. He has served clients throughout the state in more than 6,000 dispute resolution proceedings. Rodney has been a member of the Florida Association of Professional Mediators since 2007, and he served as the association's president-elect from 2015 - 2017.
Summarily is sponsored by BetterHelp and The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A. Click the BetterHelp link (BetterHelp.com/Summarily) for 10% off your first month of BetterHelp.Thank you for listening. Please share the podcast with your friends and colleagues. Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.
Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services. The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice. You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer. The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers. This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only. Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.
What is the Shadow Docket? Why has it become a hot topic of late? And what do Shadow Docket orders tell us about the Court and how it picks and decides issues?
Professor Stephen Vladeck of The University of Texas at Austin School of Law joined Robert to discuss his new book, The Shadow Docket: How the Supreme Court Uses Stealth Rulings to Amass Power and Undermine the Republic. Professor Vladeck is the Charles Alan Wright Chair in Federal Courts at the University of Texas School of Law and is a nationally recognized expert on the federal courts, constitutional law, national security law, and military justice.
Summarily is sponsored by BetterHelp and The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A. Click the BetterHelp link (BetterHelp.com/Summarily) for 10% off your first month of BetterHelp.Thank you for listening. Please share the podcast with your friends and colleagues. Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.
Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services. The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice. You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer. The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers. This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only. Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.
There is something for everyone on this episode. Robert and Lindsey breakdown the following cases:
Stephens v. Stephens, 1st DCA (excusable neglect).
Manheimer v. FPL, 3d DCA (punitive damages); Long v. Kroppke, 4th DCA (same).
Goldstein v. UCF Bd. of Trs., 6th DCA (sovereign immunity).
Scott v. State, 4th DCA (1st Amend.).
TKH Coastal Prop. v. Talcor Grp., Inc., 5th DCA (appellate attys’ fees).
State Farm v. Advanced X-Ray, 3d DCA (SMJ).
Kawsar v. Alhamdi Group, LLC, 5th DCA (SMJ).
State v. Wallin, 2d DCA (knock & announce).
McConico v. Morgan’s Mill Prop. Owners Ass’n, Inc., 6th DCA (injunctions).
US. v. Moore, 11th Cir. (“confinement” for purposes of rule 609).
Brooks v. Miller, 11th Cir. (SMJ).
Hopkins v. Hosemann, 5th Cir. (8th Amend.; voter disenfranchisement).
Grell v. Lopez, 9th Cir (2nd Amend.).
In re: Amends. to Fla. Fam. L. R. P. 12.070, 12.280, & 12.340, FSC (effective 10/1/23).
In Re: Amends. to Fla. Fam. L. R. P. 12.285(c), FSC (effective 11/1/23).
Summarily is sponsored by BetterHelp and The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A. Click the BetterHelp link (BetterHelp.com/Summarily) for 10% off your first month of BetterHelp.This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services. The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice. You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer. The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers. This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only. Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without t
PIP law guru, Jennifer Opiola, joined Robert to explain several important PIP opinions from July and August. She also highlights new caselaw applicable to all civil litigation.
- Stiwich v. Progressive Amer. Ins. Co. and Parsons, 2d DCA (PFS and confession of judgment).
- State Farm v. Advanced X-Ray Analysis, Inc., 3d DCA (summary judgment; timelyness).
- Rodriguez v. The Responsive Auto Ins. Co., 3d DCA (policy rescission).
- Accident911 Help Med. Ctr. Corp. v. Direct Gen. Ins. Co., 3d DCA (motion to intervene).
- Safco Ins. Co. of Ill. v. MD Now Med. Ctr. Inc., 4th DCA (unlisted modalities).
- Clearcare, LLC. v. Granada Ins. Co., 4th DCA (summary judgment).
Mentioned but not discussed: Century-National Ins. Co. v. Frantz, 2d DCA (dec actions; default judgment).
Summarily is supported by BetterHelp and The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A.Thank you for listening. Please share the podcast with your friends and colleagues. Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.
Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services. The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice. You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer. The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers. This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only. Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.
Gabe Roth, the executive director of Fix the Court, joined Robert to talk about six proposed fixes to the federal judiciary. Fix the Court is a non-partisan, 501(c)(3) that advocates for non-ideological fixes to the federal courts, and particularly the Super Supremes, that would make the courts more accountable to the American people.
Summarily is giving away a reMarkable™ 2 tablet. This digital tablet replaces your paper notebooks and printed documents. It is a next-generation tablet for taking notes, reading, and reviewing and editing documents. The tablet includes a folio and e-marker.
This giveaway (rules below) is possible thanks to Levine Kellogg Lehman Schneider and Grossman LLP. LKLSG is one of Florida's premier boutique litigation firms. The firm specializes in complex commercial litigation, including receiverships, class actions and bankruptcy. If you are looking for a firm that specializes in sophisticated litigation, contact LKLSG at info@LKLSG.com or visit their website at LKLSG.com.
RULES: To have a chance at winning the reMarkable™ 2 tablet, listen for the two "hidden words" in this episode and email both correct hidden words to summailypod@gmail.com. Include your name, email address, and phone number. If you provide the two correct hidden words, your name will be placed into a raffle for the tablet. Only one person can win, and only one tablet will be given away. You must submit your email with the two correct hidden words no later than 11:59pm (eastern time), Tuesday Sept. 12, 2023. Along with the tablet, you will also receive reMarkable’s connect subscription free for one year. Future subscription costs may vary and are not included as part of this give away. Summarily’s host, co-hosts, guests, and individuals employed by LKLSG are ineligible.
Summarily is supported by BetterHelp and The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A.Thank you for listening. Please share the podcast with your friends and colleagues. Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.
Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services. The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice. You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer. The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers. This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only. Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.
In the Netflix documentary, Victim/Suspect, investigative reporter Rachel de Leon chronicles a surprising number of cases nationwide involving women who report alleged sexual assault to police, only to be accused of fabricating the allegations. These women are then charged with crimes and sometimes face years in prison. Rachel and the films director, Nancy Schwartzman, join Robert to talk about what they found, the crushing consequences for women who are treated as suspects, and the ways in which law enforcement turn the tables on rape victims.
Find Victim/Suspect on Netflix. Rachel de Leon is an investigative reporter and producer for Reveal. She is a three-time Emmy Award winner. Nancy Schwartzman is an award-winning documentary filmmaker and a member of the Directors Guild of America and the Academy of Motion Pictures and Sciences.
Summarily is supported by BetterHelp and The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A.Thank you for listening. Please share the podcast with your friends and colleagues. Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.
Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services. The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice. You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer. The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers. This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only. Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.
Scott Westheimer began his term as President of The Florida Bar in July. He joined Robert to talk about his major initiatives including analyzing, enhancing, and improving the Bar’s disciplinary system; providing members with free trust accounting software; strengthening the Bar’s relationship with local bar associations, and assessing the use of technology in the practice of law.
Services provided by The Florida Bar:
- Health & Wellness Center: a free and completely confidential service that connects members with professional counselors.
- Counsel to Counsel: a first-of-its-kind mentoring program designed to pair new lawyers with those who are more established in their careers.
- Legalfuel: provides members with resources to help run the business side of their law practices.
- Lawyers Advising Lawyers: LAL is a free service offered to all members of The Florida Bar who may need advice in a specific area of law, procedure, or other legal issue.
Summarily is supported by BetterHelp and The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A.Thank you for listening. Please share the podcast with your friends and colleagues. Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.
Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services. The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice. You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer. The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers. This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only. Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.
David Weinstein, a partner at Jones Walker, joins Robert to talk about the indictment of Donald Trump in DC for alleged criminal conduct leading up to the riot at the Capitol on Jan. 6th. David and Robert discuss the charges against Trump as well as motions and orders in the DC and FL cases.
David handles corporate compliance and white-collar defense at Jones Walker. Before joining the firm, he served as an Assistance U.S. Attorney in the SDFL for 10 years.
Indictment (DC)
DOJ Motion for Protective Order (DC)
Judge Chutkan’s Order on DOJ’s Motion (DC)
DOJ’s Motion for Garcia Hearing (FL)
Judge Cannon’s Order of DOJ’s Motion (FL)
Thank you for listening. Please share the podcast with your friends and colleagues. Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.
Summarily is supported by The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A.
Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services. The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice. You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer. The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers. This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only. Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.
Robert and Lindsey break down the following opinions issued in July.
- 701 Palafox, LLC v. Scuba Shack, Inc., 1st DCA (amended complaint to add claim for punitive damages)
- Drazen v. Pinto, 11th Cir. (en banc) (standing under TCPA)
- Crocker v. Crocker, 5th DCA (trial court’s discretion to consider an argument for the first time on rehearing)
- K.R. v. DCF and Statewide GAL, 4th DCA (forfeiture of court-appointed counsel)
- Miller v. Gordon, 1st DCA (temporary timesharing)
- Casiano v. Casiano, 5th DCA (attorneys’ fees in a partition action; lack of transcripts)
Thank you for listening. Please share the podcast with your friends and colleagues. Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.
Summarily is supported by The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A.
Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services. The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice. You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer. The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers. This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only. Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.
The Supreme Court of Florida recently issued an opinion about professionalism standards and stated, "The revised Professionalism Expectations that we adopt today emphasize that Florida’s professionalism standards apply to all forms of communication, including online communication, and to both in-person and remote (video or audio) interactions with others."
Zach Greenberg of FIRE (The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression) joined me to discuss the opinion and whether the revisions presents First Amendment issues. Zach is also the plaintiff in Greenberg v. Haggerty, a First Amendment challenge to a Pennsylvania Bar Association's rule that restricts the free speech rights of Pennsylvania lawyers.
Thank you for listening. Please share the podcast with your friends and colleagues. Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.
Summarily is supported by The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A.
Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services. The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice. You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer. The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers. This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only. Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.
Impostor Syndrome "describes high-achieving individuals who, despite their objective successes, fail to internalize their accomplishments and have persistent self-doubt and fear of being exposed as a fraud or impostor."*
I battle Impostor Syndrome. Studies show that 75% of professionals do. And the numbers are higher among women and minorities. A large percentage of lawyers also deal with Impostor Syndrome.
Dr. Ellen Hendriksen and Professor David Grenardo joined me to discuss Impostor Syndrome. They explain what it is, where it comes from, how it can impact our mental health, and ways to cope with it.
FLORIDA LAWYERS: LISTEN AND EARN A FREE MENTAL HEALTH CLE CREDIT.
Imposter Syndrome? 8 Tactics to Combat the Anxiety (ABA)
Dr. Hendriksen: How to Be Yourself: Quiet Your Inner Critic and Rise Above Social Anxiety
Prof. Grenardo: “The Phantom Menace to Professional Identity Formation and Law School Success: Imposter Syndrome,” published in the University of Dayton Law Review in 2022.
- Prevalence, Predictors, and Treatment of Imposter Syndrome: A Systematic Review, Dena M. Bravata, etc.
Thank you for listening. Please share the podcast with your friends and colleagues. Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.
Summarily is supported by The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A.
Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services. The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice. You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer. The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers. This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only. Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.
Lindsey Lawton and I sat down with Amanda Haverstick to talk about common mistakes in legal writing and how we can learn to Write Right. Amanda is a legal writing coach, writing consultant, and the founder of Writing Law Tutors LLC. She helps lawyers, law firms, and law students improve and fine-tune their writing.
You can follow Amanda on LinkedIn.
Thank you for listening. Please share the podcast with your friends and colleagues. Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.
Summarily is supported by The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A.
Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services. The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice. You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer. The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers. This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only. Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.
When it comes to trial advocacy, closing argument is second only to jury de-selection. Closing is a litigator's last change to speak directly to the jury and to bring days, weeks, or months of testimony and evidence to a climax.
Master trial lawyer, Sia Baker-Barnes joined Robert to discuss the fundamentals closing argument - Always Be Closing. The episode is approved for 1-hour of CLE credit (Florida).
Sia is a candidate for president-elect of The Florida Bar. She is a board-certified civil trial lawyer with more than 20 years of experience. Sia has been recognized by US News & World Report as one of the “Best Lawyers in America” and was selected by the Daily Business Review as one of South Florida’s Inaugural “Top 20 Women in Law.” Sia has been involved with the Florida Bar for years and is among the lawyers currently representing the 15th Judicial Circuit on the Board of Governors. She is also a member of the International Society of Barristers, the American Board of Trial Advocates, the Palm Beach County Justice Association, and the Florida Justice Association.
Thank you for listening. Please share the podcast with your friends and colleagues. Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.
Summarily is supported by The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A.
Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services. The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice. You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer. The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers. This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only. Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.
Lindsey and Robert break down recent rule changes and opinions from June.
- Rule 9.130, FSC (rule change adding to list of nonfinal, appealable orders).
- In Re: Code for Resolving Professionalism Referral and Amends. to R. Regulating Fla. Bar 6-10.3, FSC.
- State v. Walker, 1st DCA (motion in limine; petition for cert.).
- Coates v. R.J. Reynolds, FSC (section 768.79 is not a prevailing party statute).
- Coinbase v. Bielski, USSC (mandatory stay during interlocutory appeal on the question of arbitrability).
- Muniz v. King, 4th (adopting verbatim proposed orders).
- Groff v. Dejoy, USSC (religious accommodation under Title VII).
- Counterman v. Colorado, USSC (mens rea; First Amendment).
Thank you for listening. Please share the podcast with your friends and colleagues. Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.
Summarily is supported by The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A.
Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services. The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice. You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer. The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers. This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only. Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.
Jennifer Opiola, PIP extraordinaire, joined Robert to explain several important PIP and insurance law opinions from May and June.
- Mercury Indem. Co. of Amer. v. Pan AM Diag. of Orl., a/a/o Joceline Pierrilus (3d DCA).
- MGA Ins. Co., Inc v. Adv. Health & Wellness, Inc. a/a/o Esdras Cux (3d DCA).
- Infinity Auto Ins. Co. v. Miami Open MRI, LLC a/a/o Rolando Amador (3d DCA).
- Savoy v. Amer. Platinum Prop. & Cas. Ins. (4th DCA).
- Adv. Fla. Med. Grp., Corp. a/a/o Mindy Weir v. Progressive Amer. Ins. Co. (6th DCA).
- Progressive Exp. Ins. Company v. Simonmed Imaging a/a/o Hilleri Brown (6th DCA).
- SFR Servs., LLC a/a/o Donald and Jane Marston v. Tower Hill Signature Ins. Co. (6th DCA).
Thank you for listening. Please share the podcast with your friends and colleagues.
Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.
Summarily is supported by The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A.
Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services. The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice. You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer. The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers. This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only. Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.
The Super Supremes dropped a few bombs in the final days of the 2022 term. Professor Harold Krent of the Chicago-Kent College of Law joined Robert to break down Biden v. Nebraska (student loans), Moore v. Harper (independent state legislature theory), 303 Creative v. Elenis (First Amendment), and Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard & UNC (affirmative action).
Check out Professor Krent's article Judging Judging: The Problem of Second-Guessing State Judges' Interpretation of State Law in Bush v. Gore.
Thank you for listening. Please share the podcast with your friends and colleagues.
Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.
Summarily is supported by The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A.
Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services. The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice. You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer. The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers. This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only. Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.
On June 8th - in the midst of the Trump indictment - the Super Supremes decided an important issue dealing with section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. In Allen V. Milligan,the Court affirmed a district court’s determination that Alabama’s congressional map likely violates section 2. The majority opinion came as a surprise to many because it was authored by Chief Justices Roberts, who has a track record of being hostile to the VRA.
Professor Carolyn Shapiro of the Chicago-Kent College of Law joined me to discussed the opinion. Professor Shapiro is the founder and co-director of Chicago-Kent’s Institute on the Supreme Court of the United States (ISCOTUS). She has appeared on MSNBC, NPR, and C-SPAN, and her commentary has been featured in the Washington Post, The Hill, CNN, and SCOTUSblog, Professor Shapiro co-authored an amicus brief in Milligan on behalf of members of the Congressional Black Caucus.
Enjoy the discussion.
Check out the Florida Bar’s new mentoring program: Counsel to Counsel. It is designed to pair junior lawyers with lawyers who have 5 or more years’ experience. Registration is open for mentors and mentees.
Thank you for listening. Please share the podcast with your friends and colleagues.
Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.
Summarily is supported by The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A.
Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services. The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice. You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer. The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers. This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only. Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.
The Supreme Court’s 2022 term is coming to an end, so it's time for a couple of Supreme Court roundup episodes. Professor Harold Krent of the Chicago-Kent College of Law joined Robert to discuss U.S. v. Texas, an important opinion about standing; U.S. v. Hansen, which deals with an overbreadth challenge to a federal criminal statute; and Samia v. U.S., which is about the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. Professor Krent will be back with Robert on July 7th to review some of the Court's final opinions for this term, including a few blockbusters on affirmative action and the First Amendment.
Enjoy the discussion and stay tuned.
Check out the Florida Bar’s new mentoring program: Counsel to Counsel. It is designed to pair junior lawyers with lawyers who have 5 or more years’ experience. Registration is open for mentors and mentees.
Thank you for listening. Please share the podcast with your friends and colleagues.
Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.
Summarily is supported by The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A.
Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services. The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice. You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer. The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers. This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only. Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.
Is the criminal justice system too focused on punishing non-violent, first-time offenders, or is there room for collaboration aimed at improving outcomes and giving these offenders a chance to change their lives? Can the system move non-violent, first-time offenders from the "courthouse to the classroom"?
Broward County State Attorney Harold Pryor, and the Broward County Public Defender Gordon Weekes joined Robert to discuss a new program they launched in partnership with Broward College: Court to College. The program is designed to empower offenders and put them on a path to success.
Enjoy the discussion.
Check out the Florida Bar’s new mentoring program: Counsel to Counsel. It is designed to pair junior lawyers with lawyers who have 5 or more years’ experience. Registration is open for mentors and mentees.
Thank you for listening. Please share the podcast with your friends and colleagues.
Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.
Summarily is supported by The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A.
Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services. The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice. You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer. The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers. This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only. Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.
On June 15, 2023, the Super Supremes settled a circuit split on an important issue involving venue and double jeopardy with its unanimous opinion in Smith v. U.S. The Court’s opinion is timely in that it addresses what could have been an issue for the Department of Justice U.S. v. Trump.
David Weinstein, a partner at Jones Walker, joined Robert to discuss the opinion and how the case may have played a role in Jack Smith's decision to indict Donald Trump in the Southern District of Florida.
David practices white-collar defense and corporate compliance. He is a former assistant united states attorney from the Southern District of Florida. Among other leadership roles with the department of justice, David was chief of the Public Integrity Section, National Security Section, and Criminal Civil Rights Section. David was also chief of the Narcotics Section, and deputy chief of the Major Crimes Section and the Narcotics Section.
- Check out the Florida Bar’s new mentoring program: Counsel to Counsel. It is designed to pair junior lawyers with lawyers who have 5 or more years’ experience. Registration is open for mentors and mentees.
Thank you for listening. Please share the podcast with your friends and colleagues.
Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.
Summarily is supported by The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A.
Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services. The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice. You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer. The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers. This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only. Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.
Lindsey and Robert break down five opinions from May. Three deal with preservation issues that can blowup your case. Litigators beware.
- Edenfiled v. State, 1st DCA (Second Amendment).
- Dupree v. Younger, US Sup. Ct. (Rule 50(b); preservation).
- Williams v. Lomeli, 5th DCA (preservation - appeal from non-final order).
- The Alfi A. Shahid and Patricia Allan-Shahid Family Trust v. Miller, 5th DCA (preservation - reconsideration of dismissal with prejudice).
- Rosell v. VMSB, 11th Cir. (Rule 41; stipulations; appellate jurisdiction).
Thank you for listening. Please share the podcast with your friends and colleagues. Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.
Summarily is supported by The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A.
Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services. The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice. You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer. The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers. This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only. Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.
On June 8, 2023, Donald J. Trump was indicted on thirty-seven felony counts arising from his alleged unlawful retention of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago. The indictment was made public the next day.
The United States seeks to hold the former president to account for unprecedented conduct involving national security. The charges are serious, and the indictment is sobering.
Former federal prosecutor Ellen Cohen joined Robert to discuss the indictment. She served as an Assistant United States Attorney in the Southern District of Florida for 31 years. Before retiring she led the criminal division of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Palm Beach County.
You can read the indictment here.
Smith v. United States (Supreme Court case about venue)
Thank you for listening. Please share the podcast with your friends and colleagues. Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.
Summarily is supported by The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A.
Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services. The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice. You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer. The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers. This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only. Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.
Florida law-makers and Governor DeSantis are on a crusade against the First Amendment. From limiting classroom instruction based on view point, to retaliating against Disney, to enacting a vague law that silences expression based on the content of the performance, Florida is turning into a First Amendment desert.
Aaron Terr of FIRE and First Amendment lawyer, Rachel Fugate, joined be to discuss the State's recent attacks on the First Amendment.
Aaron is the Director of Public Advocacy at FIRE—the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. FIRE is a nonpartisan advocacy organization that concentrates on defending free speech, due process, and academic freedom on college campuses. Rachel is a partner at Shullman Fugate. Her practice focuses on First Amendment litigation and appellate representation. She is a member and former chair of the Florida Bar’s Media Law Committee.
Resources:
Novoa v. Diaz, (FIRE’s challenge to the Stop WOKE Act)
Order granting preliminary injunction (U.S. Dist. Ct. Judge Mark Walker)
Thank you for listening. Please share the podcast with your friends and colleagues. Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.
Summarily is supported by The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A.
Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services. The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice. You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer. The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers. This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only. Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.
Adam Feldman stopped by to talk about his creation, Empirical SCOTUS, a blog designed to look at contemporary and historical Supreme Court issues at an empirical level. Adam and Robert chat about the unprecedented sluggish rate of opinions this term, how oral argument has changed, and what the data says about the ideological split among the justices.
Adam has a Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Southern California as well as a J.D. from the University of California, Berkeley School of Law. Prior to receiving his Ph.D., Adam practiced law at McDermott, Will and Emery and Kendall, Brill and Klieger. He is also the principal for the legal data consulting firm called Optimized Legal.
Follow Adam on LinkedIn and Twitter.
Check out Fix the Court, a non-profit “that advocates for non-ideological ‘fixes’ that will make the federal courts, and primarily the U.S. Supreme Court, more open and accountable to the American people.”
Thank you for listening. Please share the podcast with your friends and colleagues.
Summarily is supported by The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A.
Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.
Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services. The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice. You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer. The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers. This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only. Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.
Ross Guberman, the creator of BriefCatch, joined Robert to talk about ChatGPT, how it works, and how lawyers can use the AI platform. Ross also gave a tutorial to show what ChatGPT can do. It's pretty amazing. We walk through the tutorial during the episode, but you can also watch it by flipping to Summarily's new YouTube channel at 13:24 of the episode.
BONUS! The episode is approved for 1 hour of technology CLE credit and 1 hour of general credit. AND IT'S FREE. The course number is announced during the episode.
Thank you for listening. Please share the podcast with your friends and colleagues.
Summarily is supported by The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A.
Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.
Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services. The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice. You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer. The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers. This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only. Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.
Lindsey and Robert break down civil and criminal opinions for the Supreme Court of Florida and the DCAs. They also highlight 3 opinions dealing with important appellate issues.
Civil Opinions (8:00):
- In re: Amends. to Fla. Rule of Civ. Proc. 1.530 and Fla. Fam. Law Rule of Proc. 12.530, FL. Sup. Ct. (clarifying both rules).
- Free CLE on Preserving Error
- Design Neuroscience Ctrs., v. Fields, 3d DCA (summary judgment).
- Mason v. Mason, 1st DCA (relief for fraud in family law financial affidavit).
Criminal Opinions (16:35):
- Chavers v. State, 1st DCA (whether right to trial includes a 12-person jury).
- Matos v. State, 4th DCA (be careful what you wish for).
- Malden v. State, 1st DCA (staleness of facts to support PC affidavit).
Appellate Issues (22:35):
- Persona v. State, 4th DCA (motions for extension of time to file briefs).
- Houston v. Wrentmore, 5th DCA (notice of supplemental authority).
- King v. Farah & Farah, 5th DCA (trial court verbatim adoption of proposed order).
Summarily is supported by The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A.
Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.
Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services. The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice. You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer. The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers. This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only. Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.
Florida recently amended its death penalty statute to allow for a non-unanimous jury decision on whether to impose the death sentence. Governor DeSantis also signed into law a statute the permits the death penalty for aggravated sexual assault of the child under 12. Both statutes are certain to be challenged on constitutional grounds.
On this episode, Melanie Kalmanson joins me to discuss the new laws and how they they might play out when they reach the U.S. Supreme Court.
Melanie is an associate at Quarles where she concentrates her practice on commercial litigation and appellate representation. She clerked for Justice Pariente on the Supreme Court of Florida for 2-1/2 years. Melanie has a fantastic substate called Tracking Florida’s Death Penalty. It is packed with information about capital sentencing in Florida. Her scholarship, which includes several law review articles, focuses on constitutional issues related to capital sentencing. Melanie has written for Slate and has op eds on the capital sentencing in the Orlando Sentinel, the Miami Herald, The Sun Sentinel, and other news publications.
Capital Sexual Battery Law
8-4 Law
- Ring v. Arizona(2002)
- Kennedy v. Louisiana (2008)
- Hurst v. Florida (2016)
- Hurst v. State (Hurst II) (2016)
- Ramos v. Louisiana (2020)
- State v. Poole (2020)
DPIC: Laws permitting the death penalty for crimes other than murder by state.
Summarily is supported by The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A.
Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.
Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services. The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice. You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer. The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers. This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only. Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.
Jennifer Opiola checks in to review PIP and insurance opinions from April (and one from May), including an en banc opinion from the 4th DCA.
- Progressive Select Ins. Co. v. In House Diagnostic Servs, Inc., 4th DCA (en banc) (reimbursement schedule).
- Shiloh Christian Cent. v. Aspen Specialty Ins. Co., U.S. 11th Cir. (contract interpretation).
- Citizens Prop. Ins. Co. v. llunsly Hernandez, 4th DCA (JNOV).
- Menendez v. Progressive Express Ins. Co., 4th DCA (retroactive application of a statute). having to do with changes in the law and retroactivity.
Summarily is supported by The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A.
Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.
Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services. The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice. You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer. The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers. This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only. Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.
Professor Mary Ziegler was kind enough to join me for a discussion about Florida’s new “Heartbeat Protection Act,” which, if it goes into effect, will ban abortion after 6 weeks and subject abortion providers to a felony conviction punishable by up to 5 years in prison. Professor Ziegler also explains how the law could expose a person other than an abortion provider to a felony conviction. She goes on to describe the push by the anti-choice movement for “fetal personhood” and what history tells us about the concept.
Professor Ziegler is the Martin Luther King Jr. Professor of Law at the UC Davis School of Law and a nationally recognized expert on the law, history, and politics of reproduction. She is a frequent contributor to the New York Times, The Atlantic, PBS News Hour, CNN, and the Washington Post. Professor Ziegler has authored several books and countless articles. Her most recent book, published in 2020, is titled “Abortion and the Law in America – Roe v. Wade to the Present.” Professor Ziegler was recently named a 2023 Guggenheim Fellow. The fellowship will allow her work on her forthcoming book, “Personhood: The New American Fight Over Equality and Reproduction.”
- Read the text of the new law here.
- Read In re T.W. here. It is a 1989 decision by the Supreme Court of Florida, which held the Florida Constitution’s privacy provision prohibits government restricts on abortion during the trimester.
Summarily is supported by The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A.
Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.
Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services. The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice. You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer. The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers. This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only. Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.
Lindsey Lawton and I review several interesting (some maddening) opinions from March. The show starts with criminal opinions. The civil opinions begin at 22:00.
- State v. Quevedo, 3d DCA (stand your ground; defendant’s state of mind).
- Williams v. State, 1st DCA (best practices for client communications).
- Upshur v. State, 2d DCA (ineffective assistance of appellate counsel).
- Crosby v. Town of Indian River Shores, 4th DCA (Anti-Slapp).
- Mannella v. Mannella, 6th DCA, (burden to show substantial change in child support; dicta).
- S.S. v. Sch. Bd. of Sarasota Cnty, 2d DCA (statute of limitations; sovereign immunity).
- NRA v. Bondi, U.S. 11th Cir. (second amendment).
Summarily is supported by The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A.
Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.
Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services. The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice. You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer. The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers. This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only. Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.
Justice Barbara J. Pariente joined Robert to discuss her remarkable career, the importance of judicial fairness and impartiality, and problems with the current judicial selection process in Florida.
Justice Pariente’s legal career began 50 years ago with a 2-year clerkship for U.S. District Judge Norman Roettger. She then settled in West Palm Beach, where she practiced for nearly 20 years before being appointed to the Fourth District Court of Appeal in 1993. She was appointed to the Florida Supreme Court in 1997, becoming the first Jewish woman justice. Justice Pariente was the second woman to serve on the state’s high court and the second to serve as Chief Justice (2004 to 2006). She is a champion for children’s rights, a cancer survivor, and a nationally recognized advocate for women and women lawyers. She was inducted into the Florida Women’s Hall of Fame in 2008. She retired from the Court in 2019.
Resources:
NAWJ Informed Voters Project
Take Stock in Children
Justice Pariente on judicial independence at the National Constitution Center (June 2014)
Book recommendation:
A Most Disorderly Court: Scandal and Reform in the Florida Judiciary (Martin Dyckman)
Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.
Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services. The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice. You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer. The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers. This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only. Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.
Justin Elliott of ProPublica and former chief ethics lawyer for President George W. Bush, Professor Richard W. Painter, join me to discuss Justice Clarence Thomas’s failure to disclose extravagant trips and real estate transactions, potentially violating federal law.
Mr. Elliott provides details about the genesis of the ProPublica investigation and what he and his colleagues, Joshua Kaplan and Alex Mierjeski, uncovered.
Professor Painter explains the federal statutes at issue and why he believes Justice Thomas’s failure to report is a “clear- cut violation of the disclosure requirements.”
Professor Painter teaches at the University of Minnesota Law School. In addition to serving as chief ethics lawyer to President Bush, he also served as Associate Counsel in the White House Counsel’s Office during the Bush administration. He has testified many times before Congress on issues related to ethics in government. His most recent book is American Nero: The History of the Destruction of the Rule of Law, and Why Trump Is the Worst Offender.
ProPublica articles:
- Clarence Thomas and the Billionaire (April 6)
- Clarence Thomas Defends Undisclosed “Family Trips” With GOP Megadonor (April 7)
- Ethics Watchdog Urges Justice Department Investigation Into Clarence Thomas’ Trips (April 12)
- Billionaire Harlan Crow Bought Property from Clarence Thomas (April 13)
Applicable statutes:
- Ethics in Government Act of 1978
- Financial Disclosure Requirements of Federal Personnel
Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.
Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services. The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice. You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer. The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers. This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only. Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.
Jennifer Opiola checked in to discuss tort reform as applied to PIP litigation, review PIP/insurance opinions from March, and to remind everyone to PLAY NICE.
- Full Pro Restoration a/a/o Placido Fernandez v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 3d DCA (summary judgment).
- Maria Mesa, et. al. v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 3d DCA (business records and hearsay).
- JD Restoration, Inc,. a/a/o Erick Denival v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 4th DCA (vacating final summary disposition).
Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.
Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services. The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice. You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer. The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers. This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only. Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.
The Honorable Ethan Greenberg (ret.) joined Robert to offer his perspective on the indictment of Donald Trump and to address possible problems for the defense, potential difficulties for Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s team (including proving intent), and what we can expect from each side moving forward.
Judge Greenberg is a shareholder at Anderson Kill in New York, where he co-chairs the firm’s Government Enforcement, Internal Investigation and White-Collar Defense Practice Group. Before joining the firm, Judge Greenberg was an acting New York State Supreme Court justice in Bronx County and a Criminal Court judge with the New York City Criminal Court. He has practiced law for more than 40 years and began his career as an assistant district attorney under Robert Morgenthau in the New York County District Attorney’s Office. Judge Greenberg has served as an adjunct professor at Fordham Law and Cardozo Law, teaching criminal procedure, civil practice, and evidence.
Articles about the indictment by Judge Greenberg and his colleague Sam Braverman: New York Law Journal and Wall Street Journal.
Read the indictment and statement of facts.
Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.
Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services. The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice. You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer. The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers. This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only. Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.
Lindsey Lawton and I review cases from the Florida appellate courts from February 2023. Civil opinions begin at 10:10.
- Oquendo v. State, 2d DCA (PTSD in self-defense context).
- Guida v. State, 5th DCA (trial court factual findings at stand your ground hearing).
- Publix v. Roth, 2d DCA (overbroad discovery; protective orders; certiorari).
- Omni Healthcare, Inc. v. N. Brevard Cnty. Hosp. Dist., (timeliness of notice of appeal).
- Danforth v. Danforth, 6th DCA (timeliness of notice of appeal).
- Unborn Child v. Reyes, 3d DCA (habeas).
- Pardon v. Pardon, 3d DCA (circuit court jurisdiction over final judgment).
- Edmonds v. Edmonds, 6th DCA (hearing requirement on magistrates' R&R).
- Aisy Alue v. Nova Se. Univ., Inc.,4th DCA (statute of limitation in employment discrimination cases).
Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.
Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services. The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice. You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer. The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers. This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only. Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.
David Lat joins Robert to discuss the student protest at Stanford Law School over a recent visit by Fed Soc invitee U.S. Circuit Judge Kyle Duncan.
Recordings and documents referenced during the episode:
- Recording of the protest and Judge Duncan's reaction
- Stanford Law Dean Martinez's letter
- Judge Duncan's op-ed in the WSJ
- DEI Dean Steinbach's op-ed in the WSJ
- UC Berkley School of Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky on MSNBC's Morning Joe
Check out David's substack, Original Jurisdiction, and his podcast by the same name. Follow David on Twitter and LinkedIn.
David Lat is a lawyer turned writer. Prior to launching Original Jurisdiction, David founded Above the Law, one of the nation's most widely read legal news websites, and Underneath Their Robes, a popular blog about federal judges that he wrote under a pseudonym. He is also the author of a novel set in the world of the federal courts, Supreme Ambitions.
Before entering the media world, David had a prolific legal career as a federal prosecutor in Newark, New Jersey; a litigation associate at Wachtell in New York; and a law clerk to Judge Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. David graduated from Harvard College and Yale Law School, where he served as an editor of the Yale Law Journal.
Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.
Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services. The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice. You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer. The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers. This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only. Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.
Last Friday, Governor Ron DeSantis signed HB 837, transforming insurance and negligence law in Florida. Michal Meiler, a partner at Ver Ploeg & Marino, joined Robert to break down the major changes and explain how the new laws will likely make it harder for policy holders and victims to seek legal redress.
Read the text of the law here. Read the Governor's announcement here.
Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.
Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services. The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice. You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer. The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers. This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only. Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.
Jennifer Opiola checks in to review PIP opinions from February.
- Comprehensive Health Cent., LLC, a/a/o Angela Cooper v. Star Cas. Ins. Co., (3d DCA).
- United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Family Rehab., Inc., a/a/o Hugo Nelson Jimenez, (3d DCA).
- The Restoration Team, a/a/o Rick Santos and Idalia Santos v. S. Oak Ins. Co., (3d DCA).
- United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Xunda A. Gibson, M.D., P.A., d/b/a Premier Urgent Care Cent., a/a/o Jean Baptiste Ochelin, (4th DCA).
- Baker Family Chiropractic, LLC, a/a/o Hahn Dinh v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., (5th DCA).
Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.
Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services. The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice. You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer. The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers. This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only. Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.
At the urging of Governor Ron DeSantis, the Legislature is considering proposed legislation that will lead to more death sentences in Florida. Robert Dunham, the former Executive Director of the Death Penalty Information Center, joined Robert to discuss the bills and what they mean for the death penalty in Florida.
Robert Dunham is a nationally recognized expert on the death penalty with more than 25 years of capital litigation experience.
Bills related to nonunanimous death recommendations:
- You can read the latest version (3/8/23) of house bill 555 here and follow the changes here.
- You can read the latest version (3/8/23) of senate bill 450 hereand follow the changes here.
Bills related to imposing the death penalty for child sexual battery:
- You can read the latest version (3/1/23) of house bill 1297 here and follow changes to the bill here.
- You can read the latest version (3/1/23) of senate bill 1342 here and follow changes to the bill here.
Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U.S. 407 (2008) (hold the Eighth Amendment bars Louisiana from imposing the death penalty for the rape of a child where the crime did not result, and was not intended to result, in the victim’s death).
Listen. Enjoy. Subscribe. Share.
Please send your questions and comments to summarilypod@gmail.com.
This is part 2 of a 2-part FREE CLE series on jury selection. The course has also been approved for civil trial certification credit. The course title is "Voir Dire: Preparation to Preservation." The course number is 2302057N.
Mariano Garcia is a board-certified civil trial lawyer and shareholder at Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart and Shipley, where he focuses on medical malpractice, personal injury, and product liability cases. He has achieved an AV rating for the highest level of professional ability and ethics from Martindale Hubbell. Mariano is a member of the Million Dollar and Multi-Million Dollar Advocates Forum and the American Board of Trial Advocates and has been selected to Florida Super Lawyers since 2011.
Patrick Quinlan is the training director at the State Attorney’s Office in Palm Beach County, where he earned the ASA of the Year Award in 2020. In addition to his experience as a prosecutor, Pat gained significant civil litigation experience at the Palm Beach County Attorneys’ Office and as Mariano’s colleague at Searcy Denney.
Opinions referenced:
- Cassaday v. State,289 So. 3d 915 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020) (flexibly time limits on voir dire); see also Hopkins v. State, 223 So. 3d 285 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017); Strachan v. State, 279 So. 3d 1231 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019); Anderson v. State, 739 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).
- Frogel v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 305 So. 3d 793 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020) (trial court ruling on cause challenge reviewed de novo where ruling based entirely on written questionnaire).
- Peters v. State, 874 So. 2d 677 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (cautionary tale about trying to rehabilitate a prospective juror); see also Jaffe v. Applebaum, 830 So. 2d 136 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Matarranz v. State, 133 So. 3d 473 (Fla. 2013).
- Minor v. State, 763 So. 2d 1169 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (hypotheticals are generally permitted so long as the hypo does not involve the facts of the case and does not ask the prospective jurors to commit to a specific verdict).
- Matarranz v. State, 133 So. 3d 473 (Fla. 2013) (steps to preserve trial court's refusal to allow additional preemptory challenge; rehabilitation).
Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.
Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services. The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice. You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer. The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers. This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only. Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.
This is part 1 of a 2-part FREE CLE series on jury DEselection. The course has also been approved for civil trial certification credit. The course title is "Voir Dire: Preparation to Preservation." The course number is 2302057N.
Mariano Garcia is a board-certified civil trial lawyer and shareholder at Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart and Shipley, where he focuses on medical malpractice, personal injury, and product liability cases. He has achieved an AV rating for the highest level of professional ability and ethics from Martindale Hubbell. Mariano is a member of the Million Dollar and Multi-Million Dollar Advocates Forum and the American Board of Trial Advocates and has been selected to Florida Super Lawyers since 2011.
Patrick Quinlan is the training director at the State Attorney’s Office in Palm Beach County, where he earned the ASA of the Year Award in 2020. In addition to his experience as a prosecutor, Pat gained significant civil litigation experience at the Palm Beach County Attorneys’ Office and as Mariano’s colleague at Searcy Denney.
Opinions referenced:
- Cassaday v. State,289 So. 3d 915 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020) (flexibly time limits on voir dire); see also Hopkins v. State, 223 So. 3d 285 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017); Strachan v. State, 279 So. 3d 1231 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019); Anderson v. State, 739 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).
- Frogel v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 305 So. 3d 793 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020) (trial court ruling on cause challenge reviewed de novo where ruling based entirely on written questionnaire).
- Peters v. State, 874 So. 2d 677 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (cautionary tale about trying to rehabilitate a prospective juror); see also Jaffe v. Applebaum, 830 So. 2d 136 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Matarranz v. State, 133 So. 3d 473 (Fla. 2013).
- Minor v. State, 763 So. 2d 1169 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (hypotheticals are generally permitted so long as the hypo does not involve the facts of the case and does not ask the prospective jurors to commit to a specific verdict).
- Matarranz v. State, 133 So. 3d 473 (Fla. 2013) (steps to preserve trial court's refusal to allow additional preemptory challenge; rehabilitation).
Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.
Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services. The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice. You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer. The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers. This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only. Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.
Welcome episode 50 of Summarily! Thank you for listening and supporting this podcast!
On this episode, Lindsey Lawton and I review January opinions from the Florida DCAs. (Skip to 23:30 for criminal opinions.)
- CED Capital Holdings 2000 EB, LLC v. CTCW-Berkshire Club, LLC, (6th DCA 2023) (attorneys fees; precedent in the 6th DCA).
- Gomez et al., v. R.J. Reynolds and Philip Morris, et al., (3d DCA 2023) (dismissal; interlocutory orders).
- Lojares v. Silva, (1st DCA 2023) (allocation of timesharing).
- Publix v. Blanco, (3d DCA 2023) (overbroad discovery).
- Mcardle v. Mcardle, (4th DCA 2023) (attorneys' fees).
- Bowen v. State, (5th DCA 2023) (ineffective assistance of counsel).
- Arnold v. Florida, (3d DCA 2023) (defendant's presence at sentencing).
Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.
Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services. The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice. You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer. The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers. This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only. Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.
Jennifer Opiola checks in to review three important PIP opinions from December and January.
- Bain Complete Wellness, LLC v. Garrison Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., (Fla. 2d DCA 2022).
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Best Med. Treatments, Inc., (Fla. 3d DCA 2023).
- People’s Tr. Ins. Co. v. Errol A. Polanco, ( Fla. 4th DCA 2023).
Jennifer also discussed the jurisdictional briefs filed with the Florida Supreme Court in United Automobile v. Lauderhill Medical (Amber Griffin) and United Automobile v. Lauderhill Medical (Robert White). Both cases were covered in December.
Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.
Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services. The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice. You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer. The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers. This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only. Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.
Professor Harold J. Krent of the Chicago-Kent College of Law joins Robert to discuss a recent 5th Circuit opinion holding that, under N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, a federal statute prohibiting an individual subject to a domestic violence restraining order from possessing a firearm violates the Second Amendment.
Professor Krent is the former dean of the Chicago-Kent College of Law, where he teaches in the areas of constitutional law, appellate courts, legislation, and administrative law.
Opinions and cases discussed:
- NYSRPA v. Bruen(U.S. Supreme Court)
- U.S. v. Rahimi(5th Circuit)
- Hardaway v. Nigrelli (federal district court strikes down New York’s restriction on carrying firearms in houses of worship).
- U.S. v. Price, (federal judge held that the longstanding federal law barring individuals from possessing firearms with obliterated serial numbers violated the Second Amendment).
- U.S. v. Bullock, (federal judge faced with a Second Amendment challenge to the federal ban on felons possessing firearms issued an order asking whether he should appoint a historian to assist in evaluating the law’s constitutionality).
- U.S. v. Harrison, (federal law prohibiting marijuana users from possessing firearms violates the Second Amendment).
Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.
Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services. The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice. You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer. The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers. This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only. Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.
The recipient of countless awards from dozens of legal and civic organizations, H.T. Smith is an icon in the legal community, a civil rights legend, and a champion for a “full cup of justice for the least, the last, the lost, the looked over, and the left out.” He blazed pioneering trails as Miami’s first African-American assistant public defender and first African-American assistant county attorney. And he established the first Black-owned law firm in downtown Miami. He was voted the Top Trial Lawyer for 2017 by the Dade County Bar Association, listed in The Best Lawyers in America for over 20 years, listed inFlorida Super Lawyers, selected as one of theTop 10 Trial Lawyers of the Year by the National Law Journal, and is rated AV Preeminent by Martindale-Hubbell.
H.T. Smith joined Robert to discuss his five pillars of advocacy.
Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.
Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services. The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice. You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer. The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers. This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only. Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.
According to the U.S. Supreme Court, juveniles are different than adults when it comes to criminal culpability. This has ramifications at sentencing. For example, sentencing a person to death for a capital offense violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment if the person was younger than 18 years old at the time of the offense. But why are juveniles different? That is the topic of this episode.
Robert is joined by Dr. Robert Kinscherff, executive director of the Center for Law, Brain, and Behavior at Massachusetts General Hospital, and Judge Jay Blitzman, law professor and interim executive director of the Massachusetts Advocates for Children. They discuss the juvenile brain, juvenile culpability, and the recent tragedy involving the 6-year-old boy who shot his teacher, Abigail Zwerner.
Resources:
White Paper on the Science of Late Adolescence: A Guide for Judges, Attorneys, and Policy Makers.
Cases discussed:
- Roper v. Simmons, (2005) (sentencing a person to death for a capital offense violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment if the person was younger than 18 years old at the time of the offense).
- Graham v. Florida,(2010) (sentencing an individual to life imprisonment without parole for a non-homicide crime committed before the defendant reached the age of 18 violates the Eighth Amendment).
- Miller v. Alabama,(2012) (sentencing to mandatory life in prison without the possibility of parole for juvenile homicide offenders violates the Eighth Amendment).
- Montgomery v. Louisiana,(2016) (Miller applies retroactively).
- Jones v. Mississippi,(2021) (sentencing judge is not required the sentencer to make a separate factual finding of permanent incorrigibility before sentencing the defendant to life without parole in capital case).
Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.
Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services. The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice. You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer. The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers. This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only. Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.
Former Justice of the Supreme Court of Florida, Alan Lawson, joins Robert and Lindsey to talk about his journey to the bench, judging, and constitutional interpretation.
Alan Lawson was a member of the Supreme Court of Florida from 2016-22. Prior to his tenure on the Supreme Court, he served as a judge on the 5th DCA for over a decade, including as chief judge from 2015-16. His legal career began in 1987 when he joined Steel Hector & Davis, where he became a partner. Justice Lawson also served as an assistant county attorney in Orange County and as judge on the 9th judicial circuit. He earned his B.S. degree from Clemson and his JD from Florida State.
Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.
*Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services. The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice. You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer. The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers. This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only. Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.
On this episode, Lindsey Lawton and I review December 2022 opinions from the Florida District Courts of Appeal and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit.
Listen. Enjoy. Subscribe. Share.
· Snow v. State, 1st DCA, Dec. 12, 2022 (stand your ground).
· Yentes v. Papadopoulos, 2d DCA, Dec. 2, 2022 (informed consent in med mal).
· The Est. of Nicholas Blakely v. Stetson Univ., 5th DCA, Dec. 30, 2022 (exculpatory clauses for negligent acts).
· Publix Super Markets v. Alford, 5th DCA, Dec. 30, 2022 (proposal for settlement).
· Balazic v. Balazic, 5th DCA, Dec. 22, 2022 (distribution of marital property).
· Jessup v. Werner, 1st DCA, Dec. 30, 2022 (attorneys’ fees; finality).
· U.S. v. Jackson, 11th Circuit, Dec. 12, 2022 (ACCA serious drug offenses).
· Henry v. AIM Indus., 2d DCA, Dec. 16, 2022 (no transcript, no appeal).
· N. Am. Co. for Life and Health Ins. v. Caldwell, 11th Circuit, Dec. 12, 2022 (suicide by cop; suicide exclusion to life insurance policy).
· Cupo v. Cupo, 4th DCA, Dec. 21, 2022 (military pensions).
· Lai v. State, 5th DCA, Dec. 2, 2022 (ineffective assistance of appellate counsel).
6th DCA's administrative orders
Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.
*Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services. The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice. You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer. The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers. This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only. Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.
Professor Harold Krent of the Chicago Kent College of Law joins Robert to discuss a major 11th Circuit opinion. The court, sitting en banc, held that separating the use of male and female bathrooms in public schools based on a student’s biological sex does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or Title IX. The case is Drew Adams v. School Board of St. Johns County, Florida.
Listen. Enjoy. Subscribe. Share.
Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.
*Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services. The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice. You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer. The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers. This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only. Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.
Marsy's Law is a provision of the Florida Constitution that grants crime victims certain rights, among them is the right to "prevent the disclosure of information or records that could be used to locate or harass the victim or the victim’s family[.]" Art. I, §16(b)(5), Fla. Const. A police officer is victimized while on duty. Can she claim the protections of Marsy's Law?
Daniela Abratt of Thomas & LoCicero joins Robert to debate the issue. Thomas & LoCicero represents the news media, which intervened in the case. The media argues that police officers are not covered by Marsy's Law. The First District Court of Appeal disagreed. The case is now before the Florida Supreme Court. Oral argument took place on Dec. 7, 2022.
This podcast is supported by Ascension Global Staffing & Executive Search.
*Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services. he information provided in this podcast is not intended to be legal advice. You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer. The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers. This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only. Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.
Cristina Cambo breaks down the major changes to property insurance law in the wake of SB 2-A and explains what litigators and policy holders need to know.
Cristina Cambo is a partner at the Bolin Law Group where she practices first- and third-party insurance coverage and defense. She recently testified before the Florida legislature on behalf of the Florida Defense Lawyers Association.
You can find the summary of SB 2-A here.
This podcast is supported by Ascension Global Staffing & Executive Search.
*Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services. he information provided in this podcast is not intended to be legal advice. You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer. The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers. This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only. Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.
State Attorney Harold F. Pryor joins Robert to discuss inequities in the criminal justice system, the challenges facing local prosecutors, and what it means to be a thoughtful and compassionate prosecutor.
This podcast is supported by Ascension Global Staffing & Executive Search.
*Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services. The information provided in this podcast is not intended to be legal advice. You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer. The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers. This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only. Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.
Jennifer Opiola stops by to review three major PIP opinions from November, as well as an importance case from 2013 that plays a role in how the three opinions were decided.
This podcast is supported by Ascension Global Staffing & Executive Search.
· United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Lauderhill Med. Cent., LLC a/a/o /Robert White, (Fla. 4th DCA 2022).
· United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Lauderhill Med. Cent., LLC a/a/o Amber Griffin, (Fla. 4th DCA 2022).
· United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Chironex Enter., Inc. a/a/o Eimly Echegaray, (Fla. 4th DCA 2022).
· Allstate Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Perez ex rel. Jeffrey Tedder, (Fla. 2d DCA 2013).
*Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services. The information provided in this podcast is not intended to be legal advice. You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer. The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers. This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only. Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.
Lindsey and Robert cover civil and criminal opinions from November.
This podcast is supported by Ascension Global Staffing & Executive Search.
Civil Opinions
Enriquez v. Velazquez, 5th DCA (family law; paternity).
Wharran v. Morgan, 2d DCA (discovery; privacy rights).
Harris v. Plapp, 1st DCA (proposals for settlement).
Criminal Opinions (begin at 20:48)
State v. Richmond, 1st DCA (medical records in criminal proceedings).
Somers v. United States, FL. S. Ct. (ACCA).
Edwards v. State,1st DCA (stand-your-ground immunity).
State v. Hall, 2d DCA (plea agreements).
Martin v. State, 1st DCA (preservation; proffer).
*Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services. The information provided in this podcast is not intended to be legal advice. You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer. The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers.
This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only. Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.
Antony Page, Dean of FIU Law, joins Robert to discuss legal education, the U.S. News and World Report ranking, and affirmative action.
This podcast is supported by Ascension Global Staffing & Executive Search.
Antony Page was named the third dean of the FIU College of Law in May 2018. Prior to joining FIU Law, Dean Page served as Vice Dean and Professor of Law at the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law.
Dean Page earned his J.D. with distinction from Stanford Law School, where he was elected to Order of the Coif. Following law school, he clerked for the Honorable H.L. Hupp of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, and for the Honorable A.L. Alarcon of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. His international professional experience includes private practice in the London and Los Angeles offices of New York-based law firm Sullivan & Cromwell.
Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services. The information provided in this podcast is not intended to be legal advice. You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer. The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers.
This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only. Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.
Lindsey Lawton and I review civil and criminal opinions from September and October.
Civil Opinions:
· Iarussi v. Iarussi, 1st DCA (prejudgment interest on equitable distribution, and imputation of income for investments).
· White v. AutoZone, 3d DCA (employment discrimination).
· EIG Services, Inc. v. One Call Medical, Inc., 1st DCA (arbitration).
· Martin v. City of Tampa and Columbia Restaurant, 2d DCA (negligence; legal duty).
Criminal Opinions (beginning at 19:45)
· State v. Green, 1st DCA (warrantless search of probationer’s home).
· State v. Torres, 5th DCA (ongoing investigation exception; law enforcement jurisdiction).
· State v. Woodson, 5th DCA (stand-your-ground immunity).
Previous Stand-Your-Ground Opinions:
· No evidentiary burden on defendant under stand your ground statute: Jefferson v. State (2d), Casanova v. State (3d), State v. Cassaday (4th), Rogers v. State (5th).
· Defendant failed to pled facts sufficient to make a prima facie claim of self-defense: State v. Moore (3d), State v. Woodson (5th).
It's time for PIP/insurance updates from October. Join me and Jennifer Opiola for a breakdown of the following cases:
- State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Athans Chiropractic, Inc.
- Air Quality Experts Corporation v. Family Security Insurance Company
- Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Company v. Tiffanie Hoffman
Listen. Enjoy. Subscribe. Share.
This podcast is sponsored by Ascension Global Staffing & Executive Search. Whether you are looking to bring on new talent or are trying to find the best fit for your career, Ascension can help. Firms and companies that partner with Ascension can receive a 10% discount on Ascension’s services by emailing info@ascensionsearch.com (that’s info at ascension search dot com). Team-up with elite talent. Elevate with Ascension.
Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services. The information provided in this podcast is not intended to be legal advice. You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer. The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers.
This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only. Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.
Last week, a jury in Broward County, Florida decided against the death penalty for Nikolas Cruz. The decision was met with outrage by many and relief by some. On this episode, Robert Dunham of the Death Penalty Information Center joins the podcast to discuss the facts and myths about the death penalty and to explain the Cruz verdict.
Robert Dunham is the executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center. He is a nationally recognized expert on the death penalty with more than 25 years of experience as a capital litigator. The Death Penalty Information Center is a national non-profit organization serving the media and the public with analysis and information on issues concerning capital punishment. Founded in 1990, the Center promotes informed discussion of the death penalty by preparing in-depth reports, conducting briefings for journalists, and serving as a resource to those working on this issue.
Listen. Enjoy. Subscribe. Share.
Please send your questions and comments to summarilypod@gmail.com.
New co-host, Jennifer W. Opiola of Reynolds Parrino Shadwick, P.A., stops by to reviews important PIP and insurance opinions from September. You can also find Jennifer on LinkedIn.
- Allstate v. Jesse Lee Ray, (2d DCA).
- United Automobile Insurance Company v. Keith Buchalter, DC, (4th DCA).
- Chris Thompson, P.A. v. Geico Indemnity Company, (4th DCA) (July).
- Chris Thompson, P.A. v. Geico Indemnity Company, (4th DCA) (Sept.).
- Carglass, Inc., LLC v. Esurance Ins. Co., (5th DCA).
Thanks to our sponsor, Ascension Global Staffing & Executive Search.
Listen. Enjoy. Subscribe. Share.
This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services. The information provided in this podcast is not intended to be legal advice. You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer. The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers.
This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only. Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.
Professor Harold J. Krent of the Chicago-Kent College of Law previews some of the blockbuster cases set to be heard by the United States Supreme Court during the 2022 term, which begins on October 3rd. The preview covers cases on affirmative action, voting rights (including the so-called independent state legislature doctrine), and the First Amendment.
Professor Krent is the former dean of the Chicago-Kent College of Law, where he teaches in the areas of constitutional law, appellate courts, legislation, and administrative law. He has authored dozens of articles on these and other topics. His book, Presidential Powers, is a comprehensive examination of the president's role as defined by the U.S. Constitution and judicial and historical precedents.
During the episode, Robert refers to a Supreme Court summary by Georgetown Law.
Cases covered:
· 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, No. 21-476 (First Amendment (speech)).
· Merrill v. Milligan, No. 21-1086 (Argument date: 10/4/2022) (voting rights).
· Moore v. Harper, No. 21-1271 (voting rights; independent state legislature doctrine).
· Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College, No. 20-1199 (Argument date: 10/31/2022) (affirmative action).
· Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina, No. 21-707 (Argument date: 10/31/2022) (affirmative action).
· U.S. v. Texas, No. 22-58 (prosecutorial discretion; administrative law).
Robert welcomes Florida Bar President Gary Lesser for a discussion about the start of his term, access to justice, non-lawyer ownership, and a major mentoring initiative set to launch in 2023.
Gary Lesser is the managing partner of Lesser, Lesser, Landy & Smith, PLLC. He served on the Florida Bar Board of Governors for 10 years, as the Chair of the Florida Bar Legislation Committee, and as the Chair of the Professional Ethics Committee.
Follow him on Twitter @GarySLesserEsq & @FLBarPresident, on Facebook, and LinkedIn. He can be reached at glesser@lesserlawfirm.com or president@floridabar.org.
Questions, comments, suggestions? E-mail Robert at summarilypod@gmail.com.
Listen. Enjoy. Subscribe. Share.
Florida Supreme Court Justice Jorge Labarga and board-certified attorney Scott N. Richardson join Robert to discuss professionalism.
This episode was approved for 1 hour of FREE CLE credit. The CLE course code is revealed towards the end of the episode. The course title is "Professionalism and Your Reputation."
Listen. Enjoy. Subscribe. Share.
Follow Robert on Linkedin.
On this episode, I am joined by Leah Watson and Erika Sisneros Kelley of the ACLU to discuss a new Florida law (the Stop WOKE Act), which expands the definition of discrimination to include the teaching of concepts dealing with racism, sexism, diversity, equality, and inclusion.
The complaint alleges violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. In a case challenging nearly identical language, a federal district judge recently concluded that the law unconstitutionally restricts speech based on viewpoint.
Leah Watson is a Senior Staff Attorney with the ACLU’s Racial Justice Program, where she leads investigations and litigation to challenge classroom censorship efforts (education gag orders), bias in policing, the criminalization of poverty, and racial disparities during the Covid-19 pandemic. Leah earned her J.D. from Harvard Law School and her B.A., magna cum laude, in Communication Studies and Sociology from Vanderbilt University.
Erika Sisneros Kelleyis the 2021 Marvin M. Karpatkin Fellow with the ACLU’s Racial Justice Program. She focuses on issues related to economic justice, algorithmic bias, and inclusive education. Erika graduated from the University of Colorado Boulder in 2014 with a B.A. in Integrative Physiology. She earned her master’s in Public Health in 2016 from Claremont Graduate University and completed her J.D. at University of Denver Sturm College of Law in 2021.
Listen. Enjoy. Subscribe. Share.
On this episode, Robert discusses attorneys' fees, incest (yuck!), scoresheets, and bad attorney behavior.
Liberty Mutual v. Pan Am Diagnostic, 4th DCA (Aug. 17) (PIP; attorneys’ fees).
State v. Hardley, 1st DCA (Aug. 24) (scoresheets; victim injury points).
Miami Dade College v. Nader + Museu I, LLP, 3d DCA (Aug. 31) (public records; attorneys’ fees).
Azran Miami v. U.S. Bank Trust, 3d DCA (Aug. 3) (attorney sanctions).
If you spot an opinion that you think warrants discussion, please e-mail your summary and the opinion to summarilypod@gmail.com. Robert will take a look and may include it in a future episode—with a shout-out to you!
Listen. Enjoy. Subscribe. Share.
Want a FREE CLE credit? Listen to this episode!
Appellate lawyer and certified grammar geek Lindsey Lawton joins Robert to discuss legal writing. The course, Legal Writing Made Better, covers writing structure, citations, intro paragraphs, and Lindsey's 10 top common grammar/punctuation mistakes.
Lindsey is the founder of Lawton Law PLLC and of counsel at The Brownlee Law Firm. She clerked at the Florida Supreme Court for 4 years and at the First District Court of Appeal for a decade. Follow Lindsey on LinkedIn for grammar and punctation tips. It's fun!
The course qualifies for 1 hour of general CLE credit, and the course number is announced during the episode.
Subscribe so you don't miss future episodes and CLE opportunities. Next month's line-up includes 1 hour of professionalism CLE credit with 2 very special guests.
Suggested grammar resources:
- Grammar Book for You And I (Oops Me)
- The Gregg Reference Manual
- The Redbook: A Manual on Legal Style
Citation help:
- Fla. R. App. P. 9.800
- Florida Style Manual
Listen, Enjoy, Subscribe, Share.
Questions/comments/suggestions? E-mail Robert at summarilypod@gmail.com.
Florida is adding a District Court of Appeal. On January 1, 2023, the Sixth DCA will begin its work. Judge Meredith L. Sasso chairs the work group charged with getting the new court up and running, and she will take the reins as Chief Judge of the Sixth District.
Judge Sasso joined Robert to discuss the details about the new court. Later this month, she will host a free CLE about the Sixth DCA presented by the Appellate Practice Section of The Florida Bar. You can register here.
Enjoy. Subscribe. Share.
Questions/comments: E-mail Robert at summarilypod@gmail.com.
Constitutional adjudication is not a "Cosmic Battle" of good verse evil between Ironman and Thanos. "Judges are not superheroes," and constitutional cases should be decided dispassionately, with an appreciation that judges or justices who disagree usually do so in good faith and for valid legal reasons. But "some judges [and justices] have confused their role with that of the Avengers." When they disagree with their colleagues, they sometimes claim that the "other side" is acting in bad faith or in ways that are illegitimate. Such ad hominem attacks, while rhetorically appealing and perhaps true in some cases, do not bolster the legal analysis. They do, however, undermine the legitimacy of the courts, and judges and justices should not engage in such wars.
This is the thesis of Professor H. Jefferson Powell's article - Judges as Superheroes: The Danger of Confusing Constitutional Decisions with Cosmic Battles. He joins me to discuss how some judges and justices use rhetoric as a weapon against colleagues who disagree with them, and how doing so is harmful to institutional legitimacy.
Professor Powell teaches Constitutional and First Amendment law at the Duke University School of Law. His latest book is The Practice Of Constitutional Law. He holds a bachelor’s degree from St. David’s University College (now Trinity St. David) of the University of Wales; a master’s degree and PhD from Duke University; and a Master’s of Divinity and JD from Yale University. Prior to entering academia almost 4 decades ago, Professor Powell clerked for Judge Sam J. Ervin III of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Opinions and writings discussed:
Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Org., USSC (2022).
McDougall v. Cnty. of Ventura, 9th Cir. (2022).
SisterSong v. Gov. of Georgia, 11th Cir. (2022).
Manning v. Caldwell, 4th Cir. (2019).
Robert's LinkedIn article about Chief Judge William Pryor's opinion in SisterSong.
In Praise of Doubt: How to Have Convictions Without Becoming a Fanatic
On this episode, Robert provides a quick "summary" of some important criminal opinions for July 2022. You can listen to the civil opinion summaries for July on episode 24.
Listen. Enjoy. Share.
· Youngman v. State, 2d DCA (7/1/22) (Fourth Amendment (digital search)).
· State v. Rojas, 3d DCA (7/13/22) (Double Jeopardy; motion to dismiss appeal).
· U.S. v. Lewis, U.S.C.A. 11th Cir. (7/14/22) (Fourth Amendment; collateral estoppel) (issue of first impression).
· King v. United States, U.S.C.A. 11th Cir. (7/28/22) (federal habeas; appeal waiver) (issue of first impression).
On this episode, Robert provides a quick "summary" of some important civil opinions for July 2022. You can listen to the criminal opinion summaries for July on episode 23.
Listen. Enjoy. Share.
· Perez v. Citizens, 3d DCA (7/6/22) (summary judgment; insurance claim; investigator affidavit).
· Kassa v. Stephenson, U.S.C.A. 11th Cir. (7/18/22) (Section 1983; prosecutor liability; immunity).
· Dacostagomez-Aguilar v. U.S. Attorney General, U.S.C.A. 11th Cir. (7/19/22) (immigration; removal proceedings).
· USAA v. Mikrogiannakis, 5th DCA (7/22/22) (PIP; notice to insurer).
Alex Su is one of the funniest creators on LinkedIn (LinkedIn said so!). Oh yeah, he is also Head of Community Development at Ironclad, a columnist for Above the Law, a former federal law clerk, and a former associate at Sullivan & Cromwell (fancy!).
Alex joins me to chat about his recent social media series (The Harvard Kid), the problems with BigLaw, legal tech, and more.
You can follow Alex and his hilarious hijinks on Twitter and Instagram (@heyitsalexsu), and on TikTok (@legaltechbro).
Listen. Subscribe. Share.
On this episode I am joined by Professor Daniel Farber to discuss originalism, its flaws, and the role "history and tradition" plays in constitutional adjudication.
Professor Farber explains why "foundationalists," including originalists, frequently get constitutional interpretation wrong. In Desperately Seeking Certainty: The Misguided Quest for Constitutional Foundations, he and his co-author, Professor Suzanna Sherry, don't pull any punches: "We believe that foundationalism is doomed to failure no matter how brilliant the theorist or how important the foundational idea."
In the book, the Professors critique the constitutional theories espoused by Robert Bork, Justice Antonin Scalia, Richard Epstein, Akhil Amar, Bruce Ackerman, and Ronald Dworkin.
Professor Farber is the Sho Sato Professor of Law at the UC Berkeley School of Law. He has authored more than 20 books and more than 100 articles on topics ranging from Constitutional Law, Administrative Law, Environmental Law, and Presidential Power.
Listen. Enjoy. Share.
E-mail your questions, comments, and suggestions to summarilypod@gmail.com.
On this episode, I am joined by David Karp of Carlton Fields to discuss two major First Amendment opinions issued towards the end of the 2021 term: Carson v. Makin and Kennedy v. Bremerton School District.
David is an appellate attorney who specializes in First Amendment and defamation law. He is chair of The Florida Bar Media and Communications Law Committee, and frequently writes and speaks about the First Amendment. He recently moderated a panel of judges and lawyers who spoke about this term’s First Amendment opinions at the Florida Bar Convention.
Questions/comments: e-mail summarilypod@gmail.com.
Listen. Enjoy. Share.
I cover 6 civil opinions from June on this episode. The criminal opinions from June are covered in episode 19.
· NYSRPA v. Bruen, U.S.S.C. (June 23) (NY gun case).
· Lewis v. Max Granite, 4th DCA (June 8) (small claims; damages).
· Meisels v. Dobrofsky, 4th DCA (June 8) (summary judgment).
· DecisionHR USA v. Mills & CoverageHR, 2d DCA (June 17); Karisma Hotels & Resorts Corp. v. Hoffman, 4th (June22) (Apex doctrine).
· Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez, U.S.S.C. (June 13) (immigration; bond pending removal).
Listen. Enjoy. Share.
On this episode, I speak with Joni Mosley, founder of The Mosley Firm, and Adam Kemper, founder of The Workplace Law Firm about going solo, being a good lawyer, and building a book of business.
Joni has practiced law for 19 years and represents plaintiffs in personal injury, civil rights, wrongful death, negligent security, medical malpractice, accident, birth injury, discrimination, and sexual harassment cases.
Adam began his legal career 12 years ago and represents businesses in employment law and commercial litigation matters. He specializes in consulting, compliance, and litigation.
From baby lawyers to veteran litigators - all are sure to come away with helpful insights from these exceptional attorneys.
Listen. Subscribe. Share.
In this episode, Alex Lohman and I break down Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization—the Supreme Court case that overruled Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. We also explain what (if anything) Dobbs means from women in Florida.
Florida opinions discussed:
- In re T.W., 551 So. 2d 1186 (Fla. 1989).
- Gainesville Woman Care, LLC v. State, 210 So. 3d 1243 (Fla. 2017).
Robert can be reached at summarilypod@gmail.com.
Alex can be reached at alexlohman@gmail.com.
Subscribe. Enjoy. Share.
On this episode, I am joined by appellate attorneys Kimberly Kanoff Berman of Marshall Dennehey and Adam Richardson of Burlington Rockenbach to discuss a pesky problem pertaining to precedent. These are the cases we discuss:
OLDER IS BETTER (the prior panel opinion controls):
-
Wood v. Fraser, 677 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996).
-
Zarba v. State, 993 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007).
-
Fox v. Fox, 262 So. 3d 789 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) (en banc).
-
Schofield v. Judd, 268 So. 3d 890 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019).
-
Wanless v. State, 271 So. 3d 1219 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019).
-
Nat’l Med. Imaging, LLC v. Lyon Fin. Servs., Inc., No. 3D20-730, 2020 WL 5228979 (Fla. 3d DCA Sept. 2, 2020).
-
Earven v. State, 324 So. 3d 22 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021) (Bilbrey, J., concurring).
-
M.M. v. State, 2d DCA (April 2022) (Labrit, J., concurring).
LATER IS GREATER (the later panel opinion controls):
-
Little v. State, 206 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 1968).
-
State v. Walker, 593 So. 2d 1049 (Mem) (Fla. 1992).
-
Collins v. State, 893 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (footnote 3).
-
Daniel v. State, 271 So. 3d 1214 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019) (footnote 3).
-
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Marotta, 214 So. 3d 590 (Fla. 2017).
-
100 Emerald Bch. Way v. Thornton, et al., 4th DCA (Forst, J., concurring).
Nota bene: The 1st and 2d DCAs have come out on both sides of the issue.
For a discussion about how DCAs should resolve intradistrict conflicts in the wake of Fla. R. App. P. 9.331 see, e.g., In re Rule 9.331, Determination of Causes by a Dist. Ct. of Appeal En Banc, Fla. Rules of App. Proc., 416 So. 2d 1127 (Fla. 1982).
Judge Ross Bilbery’s attempt at reconciling older is better and later is greater: Rogers v. State, 296 So. 3d 500 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020) (Bilbery, J., concurring).
Federal land (prior panel opinion controls): see, e.g., Caplan v. All American Auto Collision, 11th Cir. (June 2022).
Welcome to episode 14 of Summarily—A Podcast for Busy Lawyers. Do "illegal aliens" have Second Amendment rights? Can a prevailing party recover attorneys' fees for litigating attorneys' fees? That and more on this episode.
Opinion list:
Samsung v. Fields, 1st DCA (May 18) (long-arm statute).
Nazarova v. Nayfeld, 3d DCA (May 18) (fees for fees).
Jones v. Ervolino, 3d DCA (May 18) (summary judgment).
State v. Garcia, FLSC (May 18) (standard for sufficiency of the evidence).
Shim v. Buechel, FLSC (May 26) (jurisdiction over foreign assets).
NetChoice v. Florida, U.S.C.A. 11 (May 23) (First Amendment and social media) (to be continued).
U.S. v. Jimenez-Shilon, U.S.C.A. 11 (May 23) (Second Amendment and illegal immigrants).
Shinn v. Martinez Ramirez, Super Supremes (May 23) (habeas, ineffective assistance).
Comments/suggestions/questions? Please e-mail me at summarilypod@gmail.com.
Welcome to episode 13 of Summarily—A Podcast for Busy Lawyers. Last week the podcast crossed the 1000 download threshold. Thank you for your support!
The 11th Circuit, citing to a Supreme Court "shadow docket" order that did not include a majority opinion, granted a stay in an important voting rights case. That opinion, and others, are covered in this episode. Here are the links to the opinions:
- Ford Motor Credit Company v. Parks, 1st DCA (May 11th) (evidence; legibility of documents).
- Commodore, Inc. v. Lloyd’s of London, 3d DCA (May 11th) (economic loss due to COVID restrictions is not “physical loss or damage to property” under insurance contact).
- Naso v. Ronald Hall and G4S Secure Solutions, 4th DCA (May 4th) (sovereign immunity; limited immunity for private parties that contract with the State).
- McKinley v. Gualtieri, 2d DCA (May 4th) (Florida dog-bite statute; discretionary vs. operational).
- Simmons v. Public Health Trust of Miami-Dade County, 3d DCA (May 4th) (pre-suit notice).
- League of Women Voters of Florida, Inc. v. Florida Secretary of State, U.S.C.A. 11th Cir. (May 6th) (voting rights; reliance on “shadow docket” orders).
- Corbett v. State, 5th DCA (May 13) (appellate review of stand your ground orders).
- Florida Statutes section 90.2035, (judicial notice).
If you have comments or suggestions, please e-mail me at summarilypod@gmail.com.
Caselaw is one word!
Welcome to Summarily: A Podcast for Busy Lawyers.
This is a follow-on episode to the emergency pod about the leak of the draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.
On this episode, Robert is joined by Professor Caroline Mala Corbin of the University of Miami School of Law to discuss the substance of the opinion. She explains her views on the opinion’s flawed substantive due process analysis, why she believes the majority’s decision is driven in part by “intense hostility towards abortion,” and how religion plays a role in the outcome.
Professor Corbin recently authored a critique of the draft majority opinion on Think: 8 Legal Reasons to Dislike Justice Alito’s Draft Opinion on Abortion.
Professor Corbin is Dean’s Distinguished Scholar at UM Law, where she teaches Constitutional Law, several courses on the First Amendment (including Feminism and the First Amendment), and Advanced Topics in Reproductive Rights. Her scholarship focuses on the First Amendment’s speech and religion clauses, particularly their intersection with equality issues. Professor Corbin holds a B.A. from Harvard University and a J.D. from Columbia Law School.
Desperately Seeking Certainty, by Dan Farber and Suzanna Sherry, “attacks the current legal vogue for grand unified theories of constitutional interpretation. On both the Right and the Left, prominent legal scholars are attempting to build all of constitutional law from a single foundational idea. Farber and Sherry find that in the end no single, all-encompassing theory can successfully guide judges or provide definitive or even sensible answers to every constitutional question.”
Questions/Comments/Suggestions? E-mail Robert at summarilypod@gmail.com.
Welcome to SUMMARILY: A Podcast for Busy Lawyers.
This was going to be big episode 10! But the emergency pod on the leaked Supreme Court draft opinion changed the plan. There will be more to come on Dobbs once the official opinion is released. Links to the opinions covered in this episode are listed below.
Many thanks to my good friend Chris Clark of Pendulum Productions LLC for editing and producing this podcast.
Questions/comments/want to sponsor this podcast? E-mail me at summarilypod@gmail.com.
Thank you for listening! Enjoy, subscribe, and share.
· Dail v. Calusa Palms Master Assoc., FLSC, Apr. 28, 2022 (admissibility of past Medicaid expenses).
· Martin Mem’l Health Sys., Inc. v. Gorham, 4th DCA, Apr. 20, 2022 (med mal v. ordinary negligence, pre-suit notice).
· Boyle v. Samotin, FLSC, Apr. 21, 2022 (med mal, pre-suit notice, statute of limitations).
· Addit LLC, et al. v. Estate of Carl Ingolia; New Port Richey Operating LLC, et al. v. The Estate of Carl Ingolia, 2d DCA, Apr. 27, 2022 (arbitration, unconscionability, severability).
· Dean v. State, 4th DCA, Apr. 13, 2022 (Marsy’s Law, due process, sentencing).
· Johnson v. Florida, USCA 11, Apr. 28, 2022 (speedy trial, 6th Amend., exhaustion, Younger abstention).
In this emergency episode of Summarily, I recapping the bombshell Politico report dealing with abortion. According to the report, a leaked, draft majority opinion, authored by Justice Samuel Alito, overturns Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
Tune in to hear a few excerpts from the draft opinion and for a brief explanation about what could be if the Court actually overturns Roe and Casey.
We will be back later this week with updates from the Florida Supreme Court, the DCAs, and the U.S. 11th Circuit.
Thank you for listening!
Robert Scavone Jr.
Follow me on LinkedIn.
E-mail me at summarilypod@gmail.com
Good evening friends:
Many are wondering whether Disney has a claim against Florida for retaliation under the First Amendment? On the latest episode of Summarily—a podcast for busy lawyers—First Amendment expert, Professor Eugene Volokh, explains retaliation theory.
Professor Volokh teaches First Amendment at the UCLA School of Law and instructs law students in the School's First Amendment amicus brief clinic. Professor Volokh clerked for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the U.S. Supreme Court and for Judge Alex Kozinski on the 9th Circuit. He can read Professor Volokh's recent pieces about First Amendment retaliation here, here, and here.
Please share Summarily and this e-mail with your friends and colleagues. If you have any questions about the show, contact me at summarilypod@gmail.com. And please don't forget to subscribe/follow the podcast so you don't miss timely appellate updates and legal news.
Thank you for listening!
Robert Scavone Jr.
Follow me on LinkedIn.
Welcome to Summarily: a podcast for busy lawyers.
In this episode, Robert speaks with legal-writing extraordinaire, Ross Guberman, about legal writing, legal education, and the ways technology is changing the the practice of law. Ross has conducted thousands of top-rated writing and editing workshops on three continents for prominent firms, agencies, and courts. He is the president of Legal Writing Pro© and the creator of BriefCatch.
BriefCatch is a Microsoft® Word add-in that offers editing suggestions that you can implement in real time. The program not only catches common mistakes but spots editing and advocacy opportunities that many lawyers and judges miss. BriefCatch 3 is now available, and it is Mac compatible.
Please share Summarily with your friends and colleagues. If you have questions about the podcast, contact Robert at summarilypod@gmail.com.
Thank you for listening!
Welcome to SUMMARILY: a podcast for busy lawyers. In this episode, we review opinions from the Florida DCAs, the U.S. 11th Cir., and the Super Supremes.
Get involved! Send your summary of a recent noteworthy opinion to summarilypod@gmail.com. If it fits the goals of the podcast, I may include it in a future episode along with a shout-out!
Many thanks to Chris Clark of Pendulum Productions LLC for editing and producing this podcast. And thank YOU for listening.
Enjoy, subscribe, share.
Cardona vs. FirstBank Puerto Rico, 3d DCA (Mar. 30, 2022).
Ripple v. CBS Corp, et al., 4th DCA (Mar. 30, 2022).
Greeley v. Wal-Mart, 2d DCA (Mar. 30, 2022).
State v. Donaldson, 2d DCA (Apr. 8, 2022).
Laufer v. Arpan, U.S.C.A. 11 (Mar. 29, 2022).
Thompson v. Clark, U.S.S.C. (Apr. 4, 2022).
In this episode I discuss oral advocacy with Judge Adalberto Jordan of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit and Judge Kevin Emas of Florida's Third District Court of Appeal.
Subscribe, share, and enjoy!
Welcome to SUMMARILY: a podcast for busy lawyers. In this episode, we review cases involving work comp, attorney misconduct, Arthur hearings, stand-your-ground immunity, and more.
In the next episode, the Honorable Adalberto Jordan of the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit and the Honorable Kevin Emas of Florida's Third DCA join me to discuss effective oral advocacy. Subscribe and hit the notification button so you don’t miss it.
Get involved! Send your summary of a recent noteworthy opinion to summarilypod@gmail.com. If it fits the goals of the podcast, I may include it in a future episode along with a shout-out!
Many thanks to Chris Clark of Pendulum Productions LLC for editing and producing this podcast. And thank YOU for listening.
Please subscribe, share, and enjoy.
Simmons v. State, 1D21-2359, 2022 WL 795444 (Fla. 1st DCA Mar. 16, 2022).
T.H. v. State, 2D20-3217, 2022 WL 815047 (Fla. 2d DCA Mar. 18, 2022).
Florida v. Fernandez, 2D19-1184, 2022 WL 880265 (Fla. 2d DCA Mar. 25, 2022).
Thourtman v. Junior, SC19-1182, 2022 WL 803688 (Fla. Mar. 17, 2022).
The Bank of New York Mellon v. Bontoux, 3D21-1869, 2022 WL 790435 (Fla. 3d DCA Mar. 16, 2022).
Wiggins v. Brightview Landscape Services, Inc., 4D21-1886, 2022 WL 791054 (Fla. 4th DCA Mar. 16, 2022).
Kelly Air Sys., LLC v. Kohlun, 1D21-0976, 2022 WL 795447 (Fla. 1st DCA Mar. 16, 2022).
Swedberg v. Goldfinger's S., Inc., 3D21-964, 2022 WL 791024 (Fla. 3d DCA Mar. 16, 2022).
Prentice v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., SC20-291, 2022 WL 805951 (Fla. Mar. 17, 2022).
In part one of a two-part series on effective advocacy, I discuss writing and briefing with the Honorable Adalberto Jordan of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit and the Honorable Kevin Emas of Florida's Third District Court of Appeal. In part 2 (which will drop on April 4th) we discuss oral advocacy. Hit the notification button so you don't miss upcoming episodes.
Subscribe, share, and enjoy!
Welcome to SUMMARILY: a podcast for busy lawyers. In this episode, we review several civil and criminal cases from the first two weeks of March 2022.
In the next episode, I sit down for the first of a two-part interview with the Honorable Adalberto Jordan of the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit and the Honorable Kevin Emas of Florida's Third District Court of Appeal to discuss effective appellate advocacy. The Judges provide insight into their respective courts and tips on how to be a better lawyer. Subscribe so you don’t miss it.
Want to get involved? If you find a recent noteworthy opinion, e-mail your summary to summarilypod@gmail.com, and if it fits the goals of the podcast I may include it in a future episode along with a shout-out!
Many thanks to Chris Clark of Pendulum Productions LLC for editing and producing this podcast. And THANK YOU for listening and subscribing. Please share Summarily with your friends and colleagues.
*Subscribe, share, and enjoy.
Sakowitz v. Waterside Townhomes, 3D21-1453, 2022 WL 697024 (Fla. 3d DCA Mar. 9, 2022).
Brown v. City of Gulf Breeze, 1D19-4245, 2022 WL 610533 (Fla. 1st DCA Mar. 2, 2022).
Phillip Morris & R.J. Reynolds v. Duignan, 2D20-2714, 2022 WL 697793 (Fla. 2d DCA Mar. 9, 2022).
Progressive Select Ins. Co. v. Kagan Jugan & Assoc., P.A., 2D21-274, 2022 WL 609447 (Fla. 2d DCA Mar. 2, 2022).
Vintage Motors of Sarasota v. MAC Enter. of N.C., 2D21-590, 2022 WL 727042 (Fla. 2d DCA Mar. 11, 2022).
Millien v. State, 4D20-1940, 2022 WL 610251 (Fla. 4th DCA Mar. 2, 2022).
State v. Moore, 3D21-273, 2022 WL 610102 (Fla. 3d DCA Mar. 2, 2022).
Smitherman v. State, 2D19-3104, 2022 WL 727619 (Fla. 2d DCA Mar. 11, 2022).
Wooden v. United States, 20-5279, 2022 WL 660610, (U.S. Mar. 7, 2022).
Welcome to Summarily: Florida Appellate Updates—a podcast for busy lawyers. In this episode, we cover criminal and civil opinions from February 2022. Links to the cases are provided below.
In the next episode, I sit down with the Honorable Adalberto Jordan of the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit and the Honorable Kevin Emas of the Third District Court of Appeal for a discussion about effective appellate advocacy. Don’t miss it.
If you find a recent noteworthy opinion, e-mail your summary to summarilypod@gmail.com, and if it fits the goals of this podcast I may include it in a future episode along with a shout-out!
Thanks to Chris Clark of Pendulum Productions LLC for editing and producing this podcast. And thank YOU for listening and subscribing. Please share Summarily with your colleagues.
*Subscribe, share, and enjoy.
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Gloger, No. 3D20-38, 2022 WL 301608 (Fla. 3d DCA Feb. 2, 2022).
State v. Kunkemoeller, No. 1D20-2209, 2022 WL 390772 (Fla. 1st DCA Feb. 9, 2022).
State v. Jones, 3D20-1220, 2022 WL 385925 (Fla. 3d DCA Feb. 9, 2022).
Main St. Entm't, Inc. v. Guardianship of Faircloth, 1D19-4058, 2022 WL 390775 (Fla. 1st DCA Feb. 9, 2022).
Wall v. State, 5D21-984, 2022 WL 413561 (Fla. 5th DCA Feb. 9, 2022).
Pincus v. Am. Traffic Sol., Inc., No. SC21-159, 2022 WL 324706 (Fla. Feb. 3, 2022).
McRoberts v. State, 4D19-2060, 2022 WL 472960 (Fla. 4th DCA Feb. 16, 2022).
State v. K. F., 1D21-1108, 2022 WL 480565 (Fla. 1st DCA Feb. 16, 2022).
Welcome to Summarily—a podcast for busy lawyers. In this episode we review several criminal and civil cases from the DCAs and the Florida Supreme Court from January 2022. Links to the cases are listed below. In the next episode we will review cases from February before moving to bi-weekly updates.
If you come across a noteworthy opinion, e-mail a summary of the opinion to summarilypod@gmail.com. I may include your summary in a future episode—with attribution, of course!
Nota bene: next month I will host two very well-respected appellate judges for a discussion about effective appellate advocacy. Be sure to subscribe and hit the notification button so you don’t miss it.
Thanks to Chris Clark of Pendulum Productions LLC for editing and producing this podcast. And THANK YOU for listening and subscribing. Please share Summarily with your friends and colleagues.
Enjoy this episode!
Shahgodary v. State, No. 4D21-1252, 2022 WL 39200 (Fla. 4th DCA Jan. 5, 2022).
Sanchez v. State, Nos. 4D20-2476 and 4D20-2477, 2022 WL 39196 (Fla. 4th DCA Jan. 5, 2022).
Brown v. State, No. 4D20-1426, 2022 WL 107947 (Fla. 4th DCA Jan. 12, 2022).
Stephens v. State, No. 1D19-3427, 2022 WL 109114 (Fla. 1st DCA Jan. 19, 2022).
Miller v. State, No. 2D19-3355, 2022 WL 162979 (Fla. 2d DCA Jan. 19, 2022).
Bailey v. State, No. 3D21-2107, 2022 WL 163913 (Fla. 3d DCA Jan. 19, 2022).
Simpson v. State, No. SC18-1238, 2022 WL 120867 (Fla. Jan, 13, 2022).
Avsenew v. State, No. SC18-1629, 2022 WL 120598 (Fla. Jan 13, 2022).
In Re: Amendment to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130, No. SC21-129 (Fla. Jan. 6, 2022). (Jeffrey Molinaro’s blog)
Hayslip v. U.S. Home Corp, No. SC19-1371 (Fla. Jan. 27, 2022).
Robinson Helicopter Company v. Gangapersaud, No. 2D20-2470, 2022 WL 38498 (Fla. 2d DCA Jan. 5, 2022).
Neff v. Archdiocese of Miami, No. 3D20-1340, 2022 WL 220542 (Fla. 3d DCA Jan. 26, 2022).