Case law

Irving Trust Company v. Kaplan

155 Fla. 120 · Supreme Court of Florida · Oct 31, 1944

We are not clearly informed by the record of the steps or *123 details of the litigation between the parties to this cause in the courts of the State of New York between February 18, 1935, when the final decree was entered … Attorney Joffe, of the New York and Florida bars, was qualified as an expert on the law of the State of New York and testified that the *127 New York judgment dated March 31, 1941 was a final judgment but that the one dated

Craig v. State

685 So. 2d 1224 · Supreme Court of Florida · Oct 3, 1996

Under these standards, the conduct of the prosecutor here was clearly improper. … Giglio clearly is not applicable here.

Dehuy v. Osborne

96 Fla. 435 · Supreme Court of Florida · Sep 25, 1928

only, after he was on notice that the vendors would not further perform, during which time *449 he occupies the status of an equitable owner entitled to any appreciation in value, but virtually with all the rights and the immunity … Certainly, it cannot be said that the chancellor was clearly in error in denying such relief under the circumstances. See Rundel v. Gordon, 92 Fla. 110 , 111 So. R. 386; Gaskins v. Byrd, 66 Fla. 432 , 63 So.

& SC15-2292 Venice HMA, LLC d/b/a Venice Regional Medical Center v. Sarasota County and Sarasota Doctors Hospital, Inc. v. Sarasota County

228 So. 3d 76 · Supreme Court of Florida · Jul 6, 2017

We also considered Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, which defined “privilege” as “a right or immunity granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor.” … Clearly, the Legislature could not pass a special law requiring millions of local tax dollars to be paid to the Local Hospital and the ABC Hospital Corp. by name, and no other hospital in the state.

State of Florida v. Christopher Douglas Weeks – Corrected Opinion

Supreme Court of Florida · Oct 20, 2016

Finally, by applying well-established principles of statutory construction, we conclude that we are able to construe the statute in a manner that avoids holding it unconstitutionally vague and does not effectively rewrite … State, 492 So. 2d 1051, 1054 (Fla. 1986), that the “literal requirement” of “the antique ‘or replica’ exceptions” to section 790.23’s prohibition on the possession of firearms by felons is “clearly absurd.”

The Florida Bar v. Prior

330 So. 2d 697 · Supreme Court of Florida · Mar 31, 1976

An integrated reading of the entire Rule 11.07 demonstrates clearly that the status of a convicted attorney's appeal is irrelevant to his suspension under that Rule. … Likewise, an established clientele, built over a long period of years, is a valued asset.

Florida Dry Cleaning & Laundry Board v. Economy Cash & Carry Cleaners, Inc.

143 Fla. 859 · Supreme Court of Florida · Aug 2, 1940

the answer, supra, contains, inter alia, the following: “A due and legal organization meeting of this Board having been held in Tallahassee; Florida, on July 9th, 1937, at which all members of the Board were present and qualified … While it is clearly within the province of the Legislature to create an office of the nature herein considered, yet the Constitution of the State expressly and mandatorily requires that provisions shall be made to fill such

Foster v. State

778 So. 2d 906 · Supreme Court of Florida · Sep 7, 2000

We conclude that the trial court properly admitted these statements to establish both knowledge and motive, rather than to establish the factual truth of the contents of the statements. … To qualify under this exception, the existence of the conspiracy must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence and independent of the hearsay statements. See Romani v. State, 542 So.2d 984, 986-87 (Fla.1989).

Morel v. Wilkins

37 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 161 · Supreme Court of Florida · Mar 8, 2012

Because the offenses qualifying a defendant for commitment under the Act occur throughout the state of Florida, “it is not unusual for ... the circuit court in DeSoto County ... to have no territorial jurisdiction over the … Prior to 2002, Jimmy Ryce respondents lacked a statutory remedy for challenging the conditions of their confinement as established by DCF.

Walls v. State

926 So. 2d 1156 · Supreme Court of Florida · Feb 9, 2006

Both Loveless and Sewell testified that sexual battery was a "non-issue" and that the jury clearly understood this. … Breggin was qualified as an expert in this area, the trial court noted that Dr.

In re Amendments to the Florida Supreme Court Approved Family Law Forms

93 So. 3d 194 · Supreme Court of Florida · Jun 7, 2012

When completing this form, you should make sure that your reasons for requesting that the injunction be extended are stated clearly and that you include all relevant facts. … attached if the modification(s) you are seeking involves temporary alimony or temporary child support, When completing this form, you should make sure that your reasons for requesting that the injunction be modified are stated clearly

Jardines v. State

36 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 147 · Supreme Court of Florida · Apr 14, 2011

In his Commentaries on the Laws of England, William Blackstone noted that “the law of England has so particular and tender a regard to the immunity of a man’s house, that it stiles it his castle, and will never suffer it … However, the crime stoppers tip was unverified and came from an unknown individual rather than a qualified confidential informant.

State of Florida v. Christopher Douglas Weeks

41 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 399 · Supreme Court of Florida · Sep 22, 2016

Finally, by applying well-established principles of statutory construction, we conclude that we are able to construe the statute in a manner that avoids holding it unconstitutionally vague and does not effectively rewrite … State, 492 So. 2d 1051, 1054 (Fla. 1986), that the “literal requirement” of “the antique ‘or replica’ exceptions” to section 790.23’s prohibition on the possession of firearms by felons is “clearly absurd.”

Valentine v. State

98 So. 3d 44 · Supreme Court of Florida · May 17, 2012

Defense counsel was “entitled to rely on the evaluations conducted by [his] qualified *54 mental health expert! ].” Darling, 966 So.2d at 377 . … Further, a defendant may not merely make conclusory allegations because it is the defendant who bears the burden of establishing “a prima facie case based on a legally valid claim.” Id. at 96 .

In re Supreme Court

8 Fla. 459 · Supreme Court of Florida · Jul 1, 1859

If the position of Justice of the Supreme Court be a different station, office, post of honor or emolument -from that of a Circuit Judge, then the holding of it by the latter is clearly prohibited. … The principle of the majoritj7 was thus established, both by constitutional and legislative authority.

Larimore v. State

2 So. 3d 101 · Supreme Court of Florida · Jan 29, 2009

The Second District also concluded that the seizure of Gordon in order to commence commitment proceedings was unlawful and could not qualify as custody for purposes of the Act. See id. & n. 4. … Section 394.913(3) provides for establishment of the multidisciplinary team or teams, and states that each team shall include at least two licensed psychiatrists or psychologists.

Timothy W. Fletcher v. State of Florida

40 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 366 · Supreme Court of Florida · Jun 25, 2015

There is no discussion in Traylor with respect to what qualifies as an equivocal or unequivocal invocation of the right to remain silent. … Unlike this case, however, Hurst did not involve the under-sentence-of- imprisonment aggravator, which this Court’s precedent clearly establishes does not implicate Ring.

Turner v. State

35 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 281 · Supreme Court of Florida · May 20, 2010

Here, juror Gard suffered a seizure during deliberations, an event that would certainly qualify as an “illness of a juror,” as described in Grayson . … Second, as discussed above, an illness of a juror qualifies as a manifest necessity.

Donald Otis Williams v. State of Florida

42 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 5 · Supreme Court of Florida · Jan 19, 2017

This Court had five very well qualified experts who could not agree on a diagnosis of the Defendant. … We reiterate: The test is not a sufficiency-of-the-evidence, a correct result, a not clearly wrong, a substantial evidence, a more probable than not, a clear and convincing, or even an overwhelming evidence test.

Leonard Patrick Gonzalez, Jr. v. State of Florida

39 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 219 · Supreme Court of Florida · Apr 10, 2014

Id. at 542-43 (stating the question presented as “whether a judge may require such notice without violating a clearly established principle of law” (emphasis added)). … Shooting deaths can qualify for the 8.