Oy, let us begin our review of the written utterances of those resplendently robed, coffee-swilling judges who must impose their judgments upon us, yes those too-cool-for-school-mensches (hi all clerks who read the blog!!) who labor in the concrete bunker by that beautiful ribbon of highway, yes it is time to examine the exciting, spiritual, almost zeit-geist opinions of our favorite, dreaded Overlords:
United Auto v. Millennium Diagnostic:
Listen, everyone in town knows that lawyers make a lot of money suing and defending United Auto claims. Judges spend a lot of time on these claims too! And they don't make any more money from doing so.
Poor county court judges, thank you for your service.
Lorillard v. French:
Can you believe we are still dealing with the aftermath of the flight attendant suits? Back then Clinton was President, Jeb was Governor and we all made a lot of money!
Here, Judge Salter in an opinion dealing with prejudgment interest, lays it out pretty clearly:
In this case, the qualifying conditions occurred in 2002. The years of further pleadings and arguments about the validity, sufficiency, or good faith of the offer and offeror did not result in any finding of “disentitlement” or “disapproval.” If trial courts defer the accrual date for prejudgment interest until the date any issues pertaining to the validity or good faith of the offer are determined, that will incent the offerees/obligors to delay the day of resolution. Such a result is clearly contrary to both the spirit and the letter of the rule and the statute invoked in this case.As always, we are pleased to see your intelligence and good judgment on the bench.
Axa Equitable v. Gelpi:
Oh oh. Two of my favorite persons, Richard Tuschman and Melanie Damian, are on opposite side of this appeal.
I like Melanie a lot more than Richard (sorry, dude). See, I should be a judge too!
Unfortunately, the 3d did not agree.
Thus, I can speak no more about this opinion.
That is all, folks!
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét