POETRY AND THE LAW

Late breaking news: Florida Supreme Court denies JNC's motion for writ of mandamus. The new judges can be elected rather than appointed by Holly Go Lightly. You can see the order on the Florida Supreme Court Website.

WE THOUGHT THAT WE WOULD NEVER SEE
A 3RD DCA JUDGE'S SON ARRESTED FOR HITTING A TREE


JUDGE RAMIREZ’S SON ARRESTED?


A comment posted alleges that 3rd DCA Judge Juan Ramierz’s son was recently arrested for leaving the scene of an accident. The police came upon a Mustang wrapped around an innocent tree. Some time later Judge Ramirez is alleged to have appeared and the police wanted to speak with the driver, Judge Ramirez’s son. They went to Ramirez’s house, and when counsel arrived the young man came out of the house and was arrested.

We have no idea about the truth of these allegations and we all know the young man is presumed innocent. But the facts of the case reminded us of one of our all time favorite appellate decisions, recounted here in full for you, our faithful and loyal readership.



WILLIAM L. FISHER, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
KAREN LOWE, LARRY MOFFET and STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants-Appellees
Docket No. 60732
Court of Appeals of Michigan
122 Mich. App. 418;
333 N.W.2d 67; 1983 Mich. App.
LEXIS 2788
November 3, 1982, Submitted January 10, 1983, Decided
JUDGES: Bronson, P.J., and V. J. Brennan and J. H. Gillis, JJ.

OPINION:

We thought that we would never see

A suit to compensate a tree.

A suit whose claim in tort is prest

Upon a mangled tree's behest;

A tree whose battered trunk was prest

Against a Chevy's crumpled crest;

A tree that faces each new day

With bark and limb in disarray;

A tree that may forever bear

A lasting need for tender care.

Flora lovers though we three,

We must uphold the court's decree.
Affirmed. n1

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

n1 Plaintiff commenced this action in tort against defendants Lowe and Moffet for damage to his "beautiful oak tree" caused when defendant Lowe struck it while operating defendant Moffet's automobile. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants pursuant to GCR 1963, 117.2(1). In addition, the trial court denied plaintiff's request to enter a default judgment against the insurer of the automobile, defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. Plaintiff appeals as of right. The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of defendants Lowe and Moffet. Defendants were immune from tort liability for damage to the tree pursuant to § 3135 of the no-fault insurance act. MCL 500.3135; MSA 24.13135. The trial court did not err in refusing to enter a default judgment against State Farm. Since it is undisputed that plaintiff did not serve process upon State Farm in accordance with the court rules, the court did not obtain personal jurisdiction over the insurer. GCR 1963, 105.4.

SEE YOU IN COURT, NO TREE LOVER WE.