Summarily - A Podcast for Busy Lawyers

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 [email protected].
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 [email protected].
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 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 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 [email protected].
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 [email protected].
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 [email protected].
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.