LAWYERS TITLE INSURANCE CORPORATION, A VIRGINIA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
MARIE RUTH REITZES AND YOUNG, STERN & TANNENBAUM, P.A., APPELLEES
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Florida Rule Of Appellate Procedure 9.330 cases and more on FLexlaw
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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gainesville Coca-Cola & Gen. Adjustment Bureau v. Young, 632 So. 2d 83 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…tally without merit and we deny it. We hope that publication of this opinion would deter the type of motion practice ap-pellee has engaged in. There are, however, other remedies available to the court. See Lawyers Title Insurance Corp. v. Reitzes, 631 So. 2d 1101, (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). BOOTH, MINER and KAHN, JJ., concur.…