tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9615048.post1561299476081289450..comments2024-03-29T10:56:01.602-04:00Comments on Southern District of Florida Blog: SCOTUS decisionsDavid Oscar Markushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18386723948607633980noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9615048.post-42379805037856031152017-05-02T18:00:33.436-04:002017-05-02T18:00:33.436-04:00@2:00 PM - #gunneralert@2:00 PM - #gunneralertAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9615048.post-70158189198997170872017-05-02T14:00:57.279-04:002017-05-02T14:00:57.279-04:00Doesn't seem clear that the case will necessar...Doesn't seem clear that the case will necessarily return to Judge D. The references to "lower court" in the scotusblog post are to the 11th Cir. (that's the court that "should have applied a tougher test to determine whether the city can recover compensation for its losses" -- the 11th Cir. reversed Judge D's ruling on a motion to dismiss that proximate cause was not sufficiently made out in the complaint). And while the appellate panel could send the case back down to the district court for reconsideration in light of the standard the Supreme Court majority set forth, I don't think it necessary has to. It could, it seems, just as easily apply the Supreme Court decision to Judge D's proximate cause analysis and either affirm or reverse. And then see if the Supremes would want to weigh in again.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com