3d DCA Watch -- "Sword-Wielders" vs. "Prime Movers" Edition

Hi kids, well the sun is shining, the per curiams are flowing, and thus all is well in my world.

Before we jump right in and drink deeply from the sweet judicial well of written utterances, I note that there is yet another revised set of directions for getting to the relocated 3d DCA for oral argument.

Pay attention, there have been a few modifications:

Park in high-rise garage (Panther Parking Garage) that is diagonally across from the FIU College of Law (NW of intersection of Campus Drive and Victory Drive). Entrance is on Campus Drive. Park on ground floor.

From 8:30 to 10:30 a.m. look for golf cart with attendant. Attendant will be wearing Irish kilt and playing bagpipes. He will provide you with first clue. You may either build a full-scale Lego model of the renovated 3d DCA courthouse, or you may jump from the top of FIU Stadium and free glide to your oral argument. DO NOT BE THE LAST TO ARRIVE. The attendant is provided courtesy of the Dade County Bar Association.

Well that's mighty nice of the DCBA, they are really always trying to make things easier.

On to the opinions.....

Wow -- by my entirely unscientific estimate, there were 10 civil opinions released this week, and almost all of them read something like this:

Galenos Holding v. Perez:

PER CURIAM.

Galenos Holding, LLC, appeals an adverse final summary judgment entered in favor of A+ Title Service Corporation. Because the record reflects genuine issues of material fact, we find that the trial court improperly granted final summary judgment and reverse. See Volusia County v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So. 2d 126, 130 (Fla. 2000).

Reversed and remanded.

I hope you found that helpful the next time these issues arise.

But luckily, the 3d did rule on an important case today, involving homeless people, "sword-wielders," and "prime movers."

No, you're not playing WoW with Chief Judge Ramirez, but this apparently is the actual test for determining whether the DOT can exercise its "home-venue" privilege and get this case the hail out of Miami and up to the safe confines of Tally:

In other words, a determination must be made regarding whether the State was the initial sword-wielder or “prime mover.” See also Florida Dep’t of Revenue v. Hardy, 697 So. 2d 954, 955 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997).

Hmm, that doesn't seem fair.

Sometimes I do feel like being the "sword-wielder," but other times I'm playful, almost coquettish, and want to be the "prime mover."

Why do I have to choose?