Summarily - A Podcast for Busy Lawyers

Hey folks. Robert here. I have decided to step away from the podcast for an indeterminate period of time. Thank you for listening and for your support. 

Melanie Kalmanson, a partner at Quarlers & Brady, joined Robert to discuss a new Florida statute that requires judges to impose a sentence of death if an "unauthorized alien" commits a capital offense. Melanie and Robert examine potential constitutional issues the law faces under current Supreme Court precedent and how the law will be challenging for trial courts to implement.  921.1426 Sentence of death for capital offense committed by unauthorized alien. —Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, the court shall sentence a defendant who is an unauthorized alien and who is convicted or adjudicated guilty of a capital felony to a sentence of death. As used in this section, the term “unauthorized alien” has the same meaning as in s. 908.111. Subscribe to Melanie's substack - Tracking Florida's Death Penalty.Read the full text of the statute here. Please send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.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 February 6, Robert debated Judge Adam Tanenbaum (First DCA) about whether the prior-panel rule applies in the DCAs. The rule requires 3-judge appellate panels to follow prior-panel precedent unless the court overrules the prior precedent en banc or the precedent has been overruled by the Florida Supreme Court. Robert is a proponent of the rule, which he argues flows from Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.331 (the en banc rule) and is supported by Florida Supreme Court precedent. Judge Tanenbaum is an opponent of the rule, which he argues has no basis in law and is contrary to article V, section 4(a) of Florida's Constitution. Robert co-authored an article in The Florida Bar Journal explaining his position. Judge Tanenbaum's position is best articulated in his concurring opinions in Normandy Ins. Co. v. Bouayad, 372 So. 3d 671 (Fla. 1st DCA 2023) (en banc), review granted, No. SC2023-1576, 2024 WL 4449458 (Fla. Oct. 9, 2024) and BAM Trading Servs. Inc. v. Off. of Fin. Regul., 395 So. 3d 687 (Fla. 1st DCA 2024) (en banc).Thanks to the Hillsborough County Bar Association for hosting the event and to David Costello of the Florida Office of the Attorney General and Dimitri Peteves of Creed and Gowdy P.A. for an amazing job organizing and moderating the debate.  Please send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.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.

Aliza Shatzman joined Robert on this episode. Aliza is the President and Founder of the Legal Accountability Project. The Project's mission is to "ensure law clerks have positive clerkship experiences, while extending support and resources to those who do not." Aliza shared her experience as a law clerk and explained the Project's great resources for future law clerks. She and Robert also discussed the kerfuffle at a recent federalist society event where two judges from the Fifth Circuit and Professor Steve Vladeck went a few rounds on judicial independence.Follow Aliza on LinkedIn. Watch the FedSoc debate here.Thank You SponsorsThis 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 summarilypod@gmail.com.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.

Lindsey, Joni, and Robert rundown several appellate opinions from October 2024.Contact to get on the Guardian ad Litem pro bono mailing list: Samuel Alexander samuel@alexanderappeals.com.In re: Amends. to R. Regulating Fla. Bar 6-10.3, FSC (CLE credit for pro bono hours).McLane Foodservice Inc., v. Wool, 3d DCA (punitive damages).BAM Trading Servs., Inc. v. Florida, Off. Fin. Regul., 1st DCA (en banc) (prior panel rule; judicial review of emergency suspension orders). Wheeler v. Dovey, 2d DCA (attorneys' fees).Ragan v. State, 3d DCA (single-homicide rule; double jeopardy). Sills v. Motor Care Concepts, II, 6th DCA (timeliness of motion for rehearing).United States v. Maher, 2d Circuit (Fourth Amendment; private search doctrine).Davis v. State, 1st DCA (competency hearings; fundamental error).Thank You SponsorsThis 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 summarilypod@gmail.com.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.

Joni and Robert were joined by Florida Bar President Roland Sanchez-Medina, Jr. They discussed President Sanchez-Medina's path to the law, his vision for the Bar, and what he is doing to make the practice of law "kinder and gentler." Thank You SponsorsThis 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 summarilypod@gmail.com.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 November 11, 2024, the Miami Herald reported, "Miami Judge's Venomous Texts Come Back to Bite her in Crumbling Death Penalty Case." The article leads of: "An appellate judge at the center of one of Miami's biggest criminal cases is facing intense scrutiny after text messages were released showing her pressuring Miami-Dade State Attorney Katherine Fernandez Rundle about how to handle the case, denigrating defense attorneys and badmouthing local judges."Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalist, Brittany Wallman, who co-authored the article with Charles Rabin for the Herald, joined Robert to discuss the backstory of the capital murder case and the text messages between Judge Bronwyn Miller and State Attorney Katherine Fernandez Rundle. In one text message, Judge Miller suggested to the State Attorney that she move to disqualify the trial judge handling the resentencing of the defendant, Corey Smith, so the trial judge's decision to remove two assistant state attorneys from the case for prosecutorial misconduct could be reconsidered. Miami Gangster's Life Could be Spared After Prosecutor Misconduct Undermines Murder CaseMiami Judge's Venomous Texts Come Back to Bite her in Crumbling Death Penalty CaseState no Longer Seeking Death Penalty in Trial of Convicted Gang Leader and Murderer 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 SponsorsThis 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 summarilypod@gmail.com.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.

Professor Harold Krent joined Robert to discuss major cases at the U.S. Supreme Court. Garland v. VanDerStok, (ghost guns) (oral argument).E.M.D. Sales, Inc. v. Carrera, (burden of proof in FLSA litigation).Ames v. Ohio Dep't of Youth Servs., ("majority" plaintiffs burden of proof under Title VII).United States v. Skrmetti, (medical treatment for transgender children).Thank You SponsorsThis 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 summarilypod@gmail.com.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.

Robert, Lindsey, and Joni recap several recent DCA opinions.Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Walden, 3DCA (first impression, presuit under section 627.70125, certiorari).State v. Myers, 3DCA (Miranda).Pacheco v. Jinete, 3d DCA (residency requirement for elected office). Beans v. Beans, 1st DCA (modification to alimony).Julia v. Ramos-Baez, 6DCA (attorneys' fees under 61.16) (creating split among DCAs). Cowins v. State, 4th DCA (PTSD; self-defense).Thank You SponsorsThis 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 summarilypod@gmail.com.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.

Adam Unikowsky is a Partner at Jenner & Block. He is at the forefront of thinking about the use of AI in the law. Adam is a graduate of MIT and Harvard Law. He focuses on appellate and Supreme Court practice in the areas of securities litigation, Indian law, patents, civil procedure, and constitutional law.Check out Adam's substack articles on AI: In AI we Trust (Part 1) & In AI we Trust (Part 2).Snell v. United Specialty Ins. Co. (11th Cir.)Thank You SponsorsThis 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 summarilypod@gmail.com.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 joined Robert to run throw opinions from June and July. Health and Wellness Evolution Co. V. Infinity Auto Ins. Co., 3d DCA (EUO; hearsay).Crown Asset Mgmt., LLC v. Bribiesca, 3d DCA (small-claims rules).Sch. Bd. of Broward Cnty., FL. v. State Farm Mutual Auto Ins. Co., 4th DCA (reimbursement under section 627.7405).Auto Club Ins. Co. of FL. v. Express Care of Belleview, LLC (Eileen Fonti), 5th DCA; Auto Club Ins. Co. of FL. v. Express Care of Belleview, LLC (Helmut J. Meven), 5th DCA (fee schedule). USAA Cas. Ins. Co. v. Emergency Res. Grp., et al., 5th DCA (deductible election).Thank You SponsorsThis 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 summarilypod@gmail.com.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.

Professor Harold Krent of the Chicago-Kent College of Law sat down with Robert to discuss the Court's decisions in United States v. Rahimi and Garland v. Cargill, and how Rahimi shows the Court's current iteration of "originalism" does not constrain judges. Rather, it is used as a tool to achieve a desired outcome.Thank You SponsorsThis 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 summarilypod@gmail.com.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.

Robert and Lindsey recap opinions from the DCAs, the Florida Supreme Court, and the 11th Circuit.In re: Amends. to Fla. R. Civ. P 1.110.In re: Amends. to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.200, 1.201, 1.280, 1.440, & 1.460.In re: Amends to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510 and New Rule 1.202.In re: Amends. to Fla. R. App. P. 9.130.BAM Trading Servs., Inc. v. Florida Off. of Fin. Regul., 1st DCA (intra-district conflict); see also A Not-So-Little Problem with Precedent: Intra-District Conflict in Florida District Courts of Appeal, Robert Scavone Jr., et al. Ripple v. CBS Corp., FSC (surviving spouse under Florida's wrongful death act).Harrell v. Friend, 1st DCA (modification of timesharing based on substantial change in circumstances).Askew v. Fla. Dep't Child. & Fams., FSC (misapplication jurisdiction).Fluhart v. Rasmussen, 5th DCA (preservation; failure to move to vacate magistrate's order).Pradaxay v. Kendrick, 6th DCA (med mal presuit; expert's specialty).Lange v. Houston Cnty. Ga., 11th Cir. (liability under Title VII for denying gender-affirming care).State v. Times, 1st DCA (4th Amendment; knock-and-announce).State v. Creller, FSC (Fourth Amendment; traffic stops). This podcast is supported by Stafi. Stafi provides trained, vetted, and experienced virtual legal assistants and paralegals. SAVE $500 off your first month by using referral code Summarily. Go to getstafi.com/schedule-a-call, select the date/time for your consultation, and enter referral code Summarily on the event details page.This podcast is also sponsored by BetterHelp. Use the link BetterHelp.com/Summarily for 10% off your first month of BetterHelp.Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.

Robert sat down with Erin Chlopak, Senior Director of Campaign Finance at the Campaign Legal Center, to set the record straight about whether Vice President Harris will be able to use funds raised by the Biden/Harris campaign. Erin also explains why republican threats to sue to prevent VP Harris from using the funds are ill-conceived. Before joining CLC, Erin spent nearly a decade working on a wide range of campaign finance issues in the Federal Election Commission's Office of General Counsel. From 2017 to 2018, Erin led the FEC's Policy Division, overseeing all legal recommendations regarding FEC regulations, advisory opinions, and other legal policy guidance. From 2009 to 2017, Erin served as an attorney and then as assistant general counsel in the FEC's Litigation Division.Thank You SponsorsThis 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 summarilypod@gmail.com.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.

Robert discussed three important Supreme Court opinions handed down in late June and early July with administrative law experts Professor Harold Krent of the Chicago Kent College of Law, and Professor Lisa Heinzerling, the Justice William J. Brennen Jr. Professor of Law at Georgetown Law. Hal and Lisa explain how Loper Bright v. Raimondo, SEC v. Jarkesy, and Corner Post v. Board of Governs are likely to change the practice of administrative law.Our SponsorsThis 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 summarilypod@gmail.com.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 recent PIP and insurance law opinions issued by the Florida DCAs.Allstate Ins. Co. v. Revival Chiropractic, LLC., FSC (PIP fee schedule); see also Progressive American Ins. Co., v. Express Care of Belleview, 5th DCA). Finell v. Florida Ins. Guar. Ass'n, Inc., 4th DCA (EUOs).HCA Health Servs. of Fla., Inc. v. Jo Ann Berlin, M.D., 4th DCA (jurisdiction; fee hearings).Lassiter v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Co., 2d DCA (SMJ; dueling affidavits). Hamilton v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 3d DCA (cert review of discovery order; depos; refreshing recollection; privilege).  Cent. Fla. Med. & Chiropractic Ctr. v. Mendota Ins. Co., 5th DCA (PIP suit over $0.02). Update: Conflict certified in Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Laguna Riviera Condo. Ass'n Inc., 2d DCA with Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Grove Isle at Vero Beach Condo. Ass'n, 4th DCA (retroactivity of statute). Our SponsorsThis 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 summarilypod@gmail.com.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.

This is a special edition to explore the Supreme Court's opinion in Trump v. United States, the presidential immunity case. The Supreme Court Monday granted former presidents absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his "conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority," and presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. The devil is in the details.I spoke with Professor Harold Krent from the Chicago-Kent College of Law, and former federal prosecutor David Weinstein, a partner at Jones Walker. Hal and I talked about the demerits of the opinion, and David and I discussed what the opinion means for the 3 open criminal cases against the former president. Our SponsorsThis 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 summarilypod@gmail.com.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.

Jury selection is the most important part of a trial. Many cases are won and lost during jury selection. On this episode, Robert and special guest host Joni Mosely spoke with Dr. Melissa Pigott about the psychology of jury selection and why it is important to understand prospective jurors' values, attitudes, and beliefs. This episode is approved by The Florida Bar for 1 hour of general CLE credit. The course number is provided towards the end of the episode. Dr. Pigott is a nationally recognized social psychologist and is considered one of the foremost experts in jury, litigation, and ADR research. She is the co-founder and director of research of Magnus Research Consultants. Dr. Pigott has selected more than 200 juries and performed thousands of hours of mock jury studies. Our SponsorsThis 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 summarilypod@gmail.com.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.

Robert spoke with Professor Courtney Cahill about the recent Florida Supreme Court opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Florida. The court held that the Florida Constitution's privacy provision does not protect a woman's right to have an abortion. The U.S. Supreme Court's opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization played a major role in the Florida Supreme Court's analysis. Professor Cahill is the Chancellor's Professor of Law and the University of California, Irvine School of Law. Professor Cahill is a scholar of constitutional law, anti-discrimination law, sex equality, and LGBTQ equality. Her forthcoming projects include a series of essays on constitutional sex equality—including the constitutional sex equality argument for abortion. She is also working on a new book called Busted, which will explore the vast network of laws that subject girls and women to criminal penalties for going topless in public and sometimes in the home. Thank you for listening. Please share the podcast with your friends and colleagues, and rate and review the show.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.Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.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.

Robert and Lindsey break down a bunch of appellate opinions. The criminal opinions begin at 25:45. CIVIL OPINIONSNeighborhood Restaurant Partners v. Wolff, 5th DCA (improper comment; mistrial; bar referral).Haslauer v. Haslauer, 1st DCA (61.16 fees).The Walsh Grp. v. Zion Jacksonville, 5th DCA (striking supplemental authority).Guardianship of Jacquelyn Anne Faircloth v. Main St. Ent., Inc, FSC (comparative fault; dram-shop law). Dunmar Est. Homeowner's Ass'n v. Rembert, 5th DCA (compliance with statutory requirement to mediate before suit; certiorari). Lee County v. Dean Wish, LLC, 6th DCA (cf. signal).CRIMINAL OPINIONSGullo v. State, 5th DCA (min mans; consecutive sentences).R.V. v. State, 3d DCA (authentication; pictorial testimony theory; silent-witness theory).Stafford v. State, 5th DCA (improper comment in closing).Paese v. State, 4th DCA (stand-your-ground immunity).Thank you for listening. Please share the podcast with your friends and colleagues, and rate and review the show.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.Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.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 testimony is over in the NY criminal trial against defendant Trump. The jury will hear closing arguments next week and begin deliberations. But questions remain. What will the jury be asked to decide? Will the verdict form include the lesser-include offense of falsifying business records in the second degree? Both sides have a strategic decision to make. Robert sat down the retired NY Supreme Court Justice Ethan Greenberg to talk about these and other unresolved legal issues in the case. Ethan is a shareholder at Anderson Kill in New York, where he co-chairs the firm's Government Enforcement, Internal Investigation and White-Collar Defense Practice Group. His most recent piece in the WSJ, published on May 19, is entitled The Big Decision Before the Trump Verdict: Whether the jury weighs misdemeanor charges could affect both the outcome and the appeal.Thank you for listening. Please share the podcast with your friends and colleagues, and rate and review the show.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.Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.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.

Robert had the pleasure of sitting down with the estimable Roger Parloff to discuss the unending delays in the classified documents case against the former president. Roger and Robert also talked about the latest in the Manhattan case against defendant Trump.Roger is an award-winning journalist and a senior editor of Lawfare. He has his fingers on the pulse of the classified documents case and he, along with the rest of the team at Lawfare, have a series of ongoing episodes called Trump's Trials and Tribulations. In the N.Y. Dispatch episodes, Lawfare covers the day-to-day happenings in the Manhattan case and provides first-hand accounts of witness testimony in the case.Thank you for listening. Please share the podcast with your friends and colleagues, and rate and review the show.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.Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.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 April 24th, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in United States v. Trump. The questions presented is "whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office."Professor Harold Krent of the Chicago-Kent College of Law joined Robert to discuss the oral argument and what the justices were interested in. Professor Krent's expertise includes appellate courts; constitutional law; courts and judges; and the U.S. Supreme Court. OA audio and transcript. Thank you for listening. Please share the podcast with your friends and colleagues, and rate and review the show.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.Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.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.

How did the Supreme Court become so powerful? Dr. Ben Johnson contends that a "little-known rule change" and the Court's unkept promise in 1928 are to blame.Dr. Johnson is an associate professor of law at the University of Florida Levin College of Law. He sat down with Robert to talk about the Court's question-selection process and how being able to "cherry-pick" legal questions has "transform[ed] the Court from a tribunal deciding cases into a super-legislator with little accountability."Dr. Johnson has written on this topic in the Columbia Law Review and for The Atlantic.Dr. Johnson and Robert also discussed originalism and how the current conservative justices on the Court have been unfaithful to the "history and tradition" approach they so frequently espouse.Thank you for listening. Please share the podcast with your friends and colleagues, and rate and review the show.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.Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.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 and insurance opinions issued by the Florida DCAs in March.Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., v. laguna Riviera Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 2D DCA (retroactivity of § 627.714(4)). Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Avril and Romain, 4th DCA (deductible as an affirmative defense). Arway v. Progressive Amer. Ins. Co., 6th DCA (statute of limitations defeated by policy language). Envision Physical Therapy, Inc. v. Geico Gen. Ins. Co., 3d DCA (exhaustion and bad faith). 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 summarilypod@gmail.com.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.

Equality Florida sued Governor DeSantis et al., challenging H.B. 1557 (the "Don't Say Gay" law). The parties recently settled, and Florida agreed to limit the law's scope in significant ways.Robert is joined by John C. Quinn, a partner at Kaplan Hecker and Fink, and D. Brandon Trice, counsel at Kaplan Hecker and Fink. John and Brandon were part of a team of lawyers, led by Robbie Kaplan, who, along with the National Center for Lesbian Rights, represented Equality Florida. Documents: Second Amended ComplaintOrder Dismissing Second Amended ComplaintSettlement AgreementSummarily 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 summarilypod@gmail.com.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 and insurance opinions issued in February, including one dealing with inconsistent verdicts and another about the retroactivity of the pre-suit demand statute under chapter 627.Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Tsirnikas, 2d DCA (inconsistent verdicts); see also Chiarella v. Ford, 4th DCA.Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Peipert, 3d DCA (entitlement to prejudgment interest).Cantens v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London, 3d DCA (retroactivity of pre-suit demand statute under chapter 627) (certifying conflict with the 6th DCA in Hughes v. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., which certified conflict with the 4th DCA in Cole v. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co.); see also Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v Grove Isle at Vero Beach Condo. Ass'n, 4th DCA. Taylor v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 5th DCA (private right of action for interest under chapter 627 vs. contractual right to interest; incorporating statutory language in contracts). 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 summarilypod@gmail.com. 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.

Are you ready for new rule 1.041 (Notice of Limited Appearance), effective April 1? Tune into this episode to learn what you need to know. Robert and Lindsey also cover several opinions from January.In re: Jane Doe 23-B, 1st DCA (judicial waiver).Tanner v. Dashner, 4th DCA (single-homicide rule; ex post facto).Nelson v. State, 5th DCA (judge's comments at sentencing).Tesla v. Monserratt, 4th DCA (apex doctrine).John Knox Village of Cent. Fla., Inc. v. Est. of Alma Jane Lawrence, 5th DCA (amending to add punitive damages). Zimmerman v. Florida Gaming Control Commission, 5th DCA (agency's obligation to adhere to prior administrative decision). Rule 1.041 (Notice of Limited Appearance). 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 summarilypod@gmail.com.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 summarilypod@gmail.com.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 Tuesday, February 6th, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in United States v. Trump and held that the former president is not immune from criminal prosecution for alleged crimes he committed while in office. Robert discussed the opinion with constitutional law professor Harold Krent of the Chicago-Kent College of Law. 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 summarilypod@gmail.com.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.

Professor Joe Regalia recently joined Robert to discuss how law firms can use generative AI to create and maximize efficiency and what law firms should do to prepare for the future with generative AI. Joe is an associate professor of law at UNLV's William S. Boyd School of Law where he teaches legal writing and the intersection between the law and technology. He also leads the training and development team at Write.Law, an online training solution for honing skills like legal writing and legal technology (including generative AI). Joe is a nationally recognized legal writing and technology consultant for law firms, courts, agencies, nonprofits, corporations, and other organizations.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 summarilypod@gmail.com.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 a handful of PIP and insurance opinions issued in December. Advance Mold Servs., Inc. v. Universal N. Am. Ins., Co., 3d DCA (dismissal with prejudice). Universal Ins. Co. of N. Am. v. Sunset 102 Off. Park Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 3d DCA (untimely motion to amend affirmative defenses; sanctions for spoliation; motion for mistrial).People's Tr. Ins. Co. v. Diaz, 5th DCA (policy endorsements) (creating uniformity with the 3d, 4th, and 6th). State Farm Ins. Co. v. James, 5th DCA (policy interpretation). 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 summarilypod@gmail.com.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 April 16, 1963, at just thirty-four years of age and five years before his life was cut short by an assassin, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. penned from a jail cell, the most powerful, persuasive, and poetic message ever written: Letter From Birmingham Jail. In honor of Dr. King and in celebration of his birthday, this is the audio of the Letter, read by Dr. King. What would have been had he lived?This is perhaps the most stirring and compelling passage of the Letter: We have waited for more than 340 years for our constitutional and God given rights. The nations of Asia and Africa are moving with jetlike speed toward gaining political independence, but we still creep at horse and buggy pace toward gaining a cup of coffee at a lunch counter. Perhaps it is easy for those who have never felt the stinging darts of segregation to say, “Wait.” But when you have seen vicious mobs lynch your mothers and fathers at will and drown your sisters and brothers at whim; when you have seen hate filled policemen curse, kick and even kill your black brothers and sisters; when you see the vast majority of your twenty million Negro brothers smothering in an airtight cage of poverty in the midst of an affluent society; when you suddenly find your tongue twisted and your speech stammering as you seek to explain to your six year old daughter why she can't go to the public amusement park that has just been advertised on television, and see tears welling up in her eyes when she is told that Funtown is closed to colored children, and see ominous clouds of inferiority beginning to form in her little mental sky, and see her beginning to distort her personality by developing an unconscious bitterness toward white people; when you have to concoct an answer for a five year old son who is asking: “Daddy, why do white people treat colored people so mean?”; when you take a cross county drive and find it necessary to sleep night after night in the uncomfortable corners of your automobile because no motel will accept you; when you are humiliated day in and day out by nagging signs reading “white” and “colored”; when your first name becomes “nigger,” your middle name becomes “boy” (however old you are) and your last name becomes “John,” and your wife and mother are never given the respected title “Mrs.”; when you are harried by day and haunted by night by the fact that you are a Negro, living constantly at tiptoe stance, never quite knowing what to expect next, and are plagued with inner fears and outer resentments; when you are forever fighting a degenerating sense of “nobodiness”—then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait. There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over, and men are no longer willing to be plunged into the abyss of despair. I hope, sirs, you can understand our legitimate and unavoidable impatience.

Goodbye 2023. Hello 2024. Robert and Lindsey rundown a handful of opinions and appellate rule changes from December.D.A.N. v. State, 1st DCA (attorney sanctions). Lapham v. Walgreens, 11th Cir (retaliation claims under the FMLA and Florida's private sector whistleblowers act). Orozco v. Rodriguez, 6th DCA (standing to seek paternity determination).  Seadler v. Marina Bay Resort Condo. Assoc., Inc., FSC (relief from erroneous denial of cause challenge). McGothin v. McDonald, 5th DCA (claim for punitive damages). Ramos v. Steak N Shake, Inc., 2d DCA (pleading standard under FCRA). Florida BC Holdings, LLC v. Reese, 6th DCA (impact rule). In re: Amends. to Fla. R. App. P. 9.020 & 9.400.  In re: Amend. to Fla. R. App. P. 9.130. 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 summarilypod@gmail.com.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.

In April 2023, Dr. Ellen Hendriksen joined Robert to discuss Imposter Syndrome and how it can negatively affect your mental health. Dr. Hendriksen is back to kick of the new year. She sat down with Robert to talk about how overidentification and perfectionism can diminish your self-worth. Dr. Hendriksen is a clinical psychologist. She serves on the faculty at Boston University's Center for Anxiety and Related Disorders (CARD) and is the author of How to be Yourself: Quiet Your Inner Critic and Rise Above Social Anxiety. She earned her Ph.D. at UCLA and completed her training at Harvard Medical School. You can follow her work at ellenhendriksen.com. And she has a wonderful substack: How to be Good to Yourself When You're Hard on Yourself. 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 summarilypod@gmail.com. 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.

Happy Holidays!In March 2022, Judge Adalberto Jordan of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit and Judge Kevin Emas of Florida's Third District Court of Appeal sat down with Robert to talk about legal writing. They gave their views from the bench on what makes legal writing good (and not so good).Whether you are new to Summarily or an avid listener, you do not want to miss what the judges have to say. Summarily will be back with new episodes in 2024! Stay tuned.  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 summarilypod@gmail.com.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.

Robert and Lindsey play catchup for October and November. Kenney v. State, 2d DCA (preservation; impeachment).Baxter v. State, 5th DCA (4th Amendment). See Owens v. State, 317 So. 3d 1218 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021)  (“regardless of whether the smell of marijuana is indistinguishable from that of hemp, the smell . . . from a vehicle continues to provide probable cause for a warrantless search of the vehicle”).Parson v. State, 1st DCA (ordering trial court to issue order to explain reasoning). Rivera v. State, 4th DCA (“pre-trying”). Normandy Ins. Co. v. Bouayad, 1st DCA (prior panel rule). See A Not-so-Little Problem with Precedent: Intra-District Conflict in Florida District Courts of Appeal (by Kimberly Kanoff Berman, Adam Richardson, and Robert Scavone Jr.).Nepola v. Nepola, 4th DCA (en banc) (child support guidelines).Green v. State, 5th DCA (newly discovered evidence). Citizens of Florida v. Clark, FSC (preservation; rule 1.530).Aileen and Samuels v. Univ. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 4th DCA (preservation; objection to verdict form). Pine v. Pine, 4th DCA (attorneys' fees)Kuschnitzky v. Marasco, 1st DCA (injunction for protection against sexual violence).  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.   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 a handful of opinions from November dealing with a variety of important issues: Homeowners Choice Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., Inc. v. Thompson, 1st DCA (discovery).Hughes v. Univ. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 6th DCA (pre-suit notice; substance vs. procedure).People's Tr. Ins. Co. v. Gunsser, 6th DCA (policy exclusions). 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 summarilypod@gmail.com.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 100th EpisodeI started this podcast with the goal of providing lawyers with free CLE courses, caselaw updates, and practice tips, and that is what's in store on this episode. I sat down with Jeffery DeSousa, the Chief Deputy Solicitor General in the Florida Attorney General's Office to talk about oral Advocacy. Jeff focuses on criminal appeals and constitutional litigation, primarily in the U.S. and Florida Supreme Courts, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeal, and the Florida district courts. A graduate of Georgetown Law, Jeff has worked on hundreds of appellate cases and presented oral argument in approximately 70, including 17 in the Florida Supreme Court. 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 summarilypod@gmail.com.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.

Richard W. Painter joined Robert to discuss the U.S. Supreme Court's new code of conduct, which outlines how the justices "should" conduct themselves.Richard served as chief ethics lawyer to President George W. Bush and as Associate Counsel in the White House Counsel's Office during the Bush administration. He has testified many times before Congress on issues related to ethics in government. His forthcoming article SCOTUS House: Can a Supreme Court Ethics Lawyer and Inspector General Help Get this Fraternity under Control examines recent ethics scandals at the high court and outlines how a supreme court inspector general and congress can assure the justices uphold their duty to be faithful to the law. Richard teaches at the University of Minnesota Law School.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 summarilypod@gmail.com.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.

Enjoy this week with your friends and family. Summarily will be back with more great content on November 28th.

The data says the average attention span went from two-a-half minutes in 2003 to forty-seconds by 2020. Diminished attention is particular problematic for lawyers who are bombarded with emails, texts, calls, and social media alerts while trying to work. As our attention span diminishes so, too, does productivity and happiness.  Dr. Gloria Mark joined Robert to talk about our cognitive bandwidth, how we get distracted, what social media is doing to our attention span, and steps lawyers can take to help limit distractions. You can register for Dr. Mark's substack, The Future of Attention, here. Dr. Mark is Chancellor's Professor of Informatics at the University of California, Irvine. She received her Ph.D. from Columbia University in psychology and studies the effect of digital media on people's lives. Her recent book, Attention Span, explores the fundamental shift in how we work in the digital age, why we are distracted, and how we can restore balance, happiness and productivity in our lives.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 summarilypod@gmail.com.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 an important pre-suit demand case, and a cautionary tale about the benefits of motions in limine.Citizens Prop. Ins. v. Salazar, 3d DCA (motions in limine).Mercury Indem. Co. of Am.  v. Cent. Fla. Med. & Chiropractic Ctr., 5th DCA (pre-suit demand letters; safe harbor).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 summarilypod@gmail.com.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.

Litigation often involves expert witnesses. Indeed, many cases rise and fall based on expert testimony. So nailing down what an expert will and will not testify about is critical to success. But deposing experts can be challenging.On this episode, Robert sat down with Sia Baker-Barnes to discuss deposing expert witnesses. Sia shared her advice on how to prepare for expert depositions and how to conduct depositions with an eye towards cross-examination. This episode has been approved by The Florida Bar for 1 hour of CLE credit. The course number is provided towards the end of the episode.  Sia is a shareholder at Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A., and is board certified in civil trial practice. She has been practicing law for more than 20 years, and has obtained numerous multi-million dollar verdicts representing plaintiffs in personal injury, medical negligence, and product liability cases. 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 summarilypod@gmail.com.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.

Robert and Lindsey review opinions from September. CPPB, LLC v. Taurus Apopka City Ctr., LLC, 6th DCA (denial of motion to dissolve lis pendens).Greathouse v. State, 2d DCA (preservation of cause challenge).Collins v. State, 5th DCA (evidentiary hearing; newly discovered evidence).Gurolla v. State, 5th DCA (discovery violation).State v. Victorino and Hunter, 5th DCA (applicability of amended death penalty statute).In Re: Jane Doe, 5th (judicial waiver where a minor seeks abortion).T.G. United, Inc. v. AADD Properties, LLC, 5th DCA (eviction proceedings; court  registry). City of Jacksonville v. Jacksonville Hosp. Holdings, L.P., 11th Cir. (voluntary dismissal under rule 41). 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 summarilypod@gmail.com.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.

What do judges expect from lawyers? How can lawyers be more effective at hearings and in motion practice? What frustrates judges most? Chief Judge Jack Tuter of the 17th Judicial Circuit joined me to discuss best practices. His valuable insight is something every litigator should hear. 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 summarilypod@gmail.com.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 a handful of opinions from September dealing with a variety of important issues: Monarch Claims Consultants, Inc. v. Cliff Fleming, et. al., (6th DCA) (venue selection clause; severability). Synergy Contracting Grp., Inc. v. Homeowners Choice Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., Inc., (2d DCA) (fraud on the court).Universal Pro. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Navlen, (4th DCA) (admissibility of expert testimony). T.I.O. Med. Intervention, LLC . Liberty Mut. Fire Inc. Co., (4th DCA) (PIP out-of-state policies). 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 summarilypod@gmail.com.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.

Adam Feldman, the creator of Empirical SCOTUS, joined Robert to discuss some of the major cases before the Super Supremes this term, including U.S. v Rahimi - a high-stakes Second Amendment case that could radically undercut DOJ's ability to prosecute certain firearm offenses. CFPB v. Community Financial Services Association of AmericaAcheson Hotels v. Laufer Lindke v. FreedO'Connor-Ratcliff v. GarnierU.S. v. RahimiLoper Bright Enterprises v. RaimondoMoore v. U.S. 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. Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.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.

FREE CLE: The course number is provided towards the end of the episode. As a lawyer, you have likely participated in mediation. And you have probably seen mediation breakdown. Why? Was your case right for mediation? Were you prepared? Did you prepare your client? What are the keys to successful mediation? Rodney Romano, the founder of Matrix Mediation, LLC, joined Robert to discuss these topics and more. Rodney is one of the most sought-after neutrals in Florida. He has served clients throughout the state in more than 6,000 dispute resolution proceedings. Rodney has been a member of the Florida Association of Professional Mediators since 2007, and he served as the association's president-elect from 2015 - 2017.Summarily is supported by BetterHelp and The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A. Click the BetterHelp link for 10% off your first month of BetterHelp.   Thank you for listening. Please share the podcast with your friends and colleagues. Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com. 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.

What is the Shadow Docket? Why has it become a hot topic of late? And what do Shadow Docket orders tell us about the Court and how it picks and decides issues? Professor Stephen Vladeck of The University of Texas at Austin School of Law joined Robert to discuss his new book, The Shadow Docket: How the Supreme Court Uses Stealth Rulings to Amass Power and Undermine the Republic. Professor Vladeck is the Charles Alan Wright Chair in Federal Courts at the University of Texas School of Law and is a nationally recognized expert on the federal courts, constitutional law, national security law, and military justice. Summarily is supported by BetterHelp and The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A.Thank you for listening. Please share the podcast with your friends and colleagues. Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com. 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.