Lawyers Title Insurance Corp. v. Reitzes

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Lawyers Title Insurance Corp. v. Reitzes

631 So. 2d 1101, 1994 WL 6722

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 12, 1994

DocketNo. 92-1638

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 631 So. 2d 1101 (Lawyers Title Insurance Corp. v. Reitzes) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lawyers Title Insurance Corp. v. Reitzes, 631 So. 2d 1101, 1994 WL 6722 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

ON RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

POLEN, Judge.

We note appellant’s response, filed December 6, 1993, to the order to show cause why-sanctions should not be imposed, as contained in our November 17, 1998, opinion denying appellant’s motion for rehearing. Appellant’s response does not satisfy this court’s inquiry. Appellant persists in maintaining that its motion for rehearing was proper and not in derogation of the proscriptions against Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.330(a) motions rearguing the merits. We clearly rejected such a notion in our November 17, 1993, opinion.

Accordingly, as a sanction for this flagrant violation of Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.330(a), we impose a fine in the amount of $1250, to be paid within 30 days of this opinion. We further direct that this fine be paid one-half by Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation, and one-half by appellant’s counsel, McDermott, Will & Emery.

GUNTHER and FARMER, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ON RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

POLEN, Judge.

We note appellant’s response, filed December 6, 1993, to the order to show cause why-sanctions should not be imposed, as contained in our November 17, 1998, opinion denying appellant’s motion for rehearing. Appellant’s response does not satisfy this court’s inquiry. Appellant persists in maintaining that its motion for rehearing was proper and not in derogation of the proscriptions against Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.330(a) motions rearguing the merits. We clearly rejected such a notion in our November 17, 1993, opinion.

Accordingly, as a sanction for this flagrant violation of Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.330(a), we impose a fine in the amount of $1250, to be paid within 30 days of this opinion. We further direct that this fine be paid one-half by Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation, and one-half by appellant’s counsel, McDermott, Will & Emery.

GUNTHER and FARMER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

631 So. 2d 1101, 1994 WL 6722, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lawyers-title-insurance-corp-v-reitzes-fladistctapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack