Stokes’ primary sin was filing a motion for rehearing that “simply re-argues the merits of the court’s opinion, in violation of [Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure] 9.330(a).” Amador v. Walker, ___ So.2d ___ (Fla. 5th DCA, No. 5D02-2454, 12/5/2003) (thanks to sunEthics for the pointer). Along the way, he also:-
attacked a case that he had agreed at oral argument was controlling
-
failed to remember the basic notion that “When the supreme court construes a statute, we are bound by its construction.“
-
proposed an alternate reading of the statute that would require “useless” and counterproductive actions by plaintiff’s attorney
-
accused the panel of distorting the law, and making no sense
-
claimed the existence of a split in the circuits (on an issue settled by the Supreme Court!), by citing a case totally consistent with the court’s decision
-
made procedural errors in filing the Motion
The court summed up its distress:
“When we issued a per curiam affirmance, citing White, it should have been obvious that we agreed with Defendants’ interpretation of White, yet Plaintiff’s counsel filed a fourteenpage Motion for Rehearing that presents absolutely nothing new. In fact, save for the inclusion of some new verbs like overlook, contort and misapprehend and phrases expressing displeasure with our ruling, the Motion simply repeats, in large part verbatim, Plaintiff’s briefs, as if to suggest to the court that we did not read the briefs the first time.
“Although much has been written to discourage the use of rehearing motions in this manner, apparently the written word is not penetrating enough to get the point across.”
The court also noted that, should Lawyer Stokes’ written response not be adequate, it would require his personal appearance.