Case law

Curtis Windom v. State of Florida

Supreme Court of Florida · Aug 21, 2025

Thus, the rule was clearly intended to have prospective application. … See Windom I, 656 So. 2d at 440 (rejecting Windom’s argument and reaffirming prior holdings that “contemporaneous convictions prior to sentencing can qualify as previous convictions in multiple conviction situations”

City of Homestead v. Beard

17 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 273 · Supreme Court of Florida · May 7, 1992

Finally, in construing a contract, it is well established that "the laws existing at the time and place of the making of the contract and where it is to be performed which may affect its validity, construction, discharge … Thus, clearly, the legislature did not intend to authorize the deprivation of rights acquired under preexisting contracts. [14] *456 Finally, the majority's reliance on Fuller [15] is misplaced.

Durousseau v. State

35 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 723 · Supreme Court of Florida · Dec 9, 2010

The evidence presented at trial established the following facts. On July 26, 1999, between the hours of 9:30 a.m. and 1 p.m., Mack and a friend applied for employment at various business establishments. … We further stated that “[o]pinion testimony, on the other hand, is not subject to the same rule,” and explained that “[c]ertain kinds of opinion testimony clearly are admissible — and especially qualified expert testimony

Ideal Farms Drainage District v. Certain Lands

154 Fla. 554 · Supreme Court of Florida · May 9, 1944

Oxford is duly qualified and acting Receiver for said Drainage District, then his appointment was pursuant to some action, or suit, filed very recently and immediately preceding the filing of these foreclosure proceedings … State is subject only to the limitations provided in the State and Federal Constitutions; and no duly enacted statute should be judicially declared to be inoperative on the ground that it violates organic law, unless it clearly

Looney v. State

803 So. 2d 656 · Supreme Court of Florida · Nov 1, 2001

As such, the admission of Hertz's statement to Hathcock was clearly a violation of the standard set in Bruton. Id. … In the present case, however, the trial court made the following findings pertaining to this aggravating circumstance: The evidence clearly established that after the defendant, Looney, and the codefendants had entered the

Hertz v. State

803 So. 2d 629 · Supreme Court of Florida · Nov 1, 2001

In the present case, however, the trial court made the following findings pertaining to this aggravating circumstance: The evidence clearly established that after the defendant and the co-defendants had entered the dwelling … To qualify for the HAC circumstance, "the crime must be both conscienceless or pitiless and unnecessarily torturous to the victim." Richardson v. State, 604 So.2d 1107, 1109 (Fla.1992).

Singer v. State

109 So. 2d 7 · Supreme Court of Florida · Feb 13, 1959

In an early case this Court held that the mere suspicion that the accused has committed some other crime is clearly inadmissible. Mann v. State, 1886, 22 Fla. 600 . … Assuming for the moment the State's argument that the proof of guilt was `clearly established' we cannot agree with the State's contention that `there is no reason to believe that any verdict other than that of guilty as

Amos v. State

618 So. 2d 157 · Supreme Court of Florida · Mar 18, 1993

The evidence established that the taller of the two men was Spencer, while the shorter man was Amos. As the customer was lying on the floor, a shot was fired, killing the store clerk. … The record clearly demonstrates that Amos is guilty. On the other hand, whether or not his conduct is deserving of the death penalty is subject to dispute.

State v. Larzelere

979 So. 2d 195 · Supreme Court of Florida · Feb 28, 2008

Two other witnesses, Kristen Palmieri and Steven Heidle, were given immunity and testified to a number of incriminating actions and statements made by the appellant and Jason regarding the murder. *200 Specifically, their … The trial court ruled that Whelan was not qualified to give an expert opinion on concrete but allowed Larzelere to proffer Whelan's testimony.

Amendments to the Rules of Juvenile Procedure

25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 924 · Supreme Court of Florida · Oct 26, 2000

This rule clearly defines the difference in procedures for summons for detained and nondetained children. 2000 Amendment. … The names and addresses of persons listed shall be clearly designated in the following categories: (i)Category A.

Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services v. M.B.

22 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 295 · Supreme Court of Florida · May 29, 1997

(b) In a criminal action, the defendant shall be notified no later than 10 days before trial that a statement which qualifies as a hearsay exception pursuant to this subsection will be offered as evidence at trial. … Since the legislature enacted section 90.803(23) in 1985, we have decided various questions of law concerning this important hearsay exception. 4 *1159 In 1993, we acknowledged that the statute’s purpose as “clearly [being

Amendments to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.851, 3.852 & 3.993

25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 285 · Supreme Court of Florida · Apr 14, 2000

established federal law”). … The outside of the container must clearly identify that the public record is confidential or exempt and that the seal may not be broken without an order of the trial court.

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Robin Curran

135 So. 3d 1071 · Supreme Court of Florida · Mar 13, 2014

Co., 37 So.3d 329, 331 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (“It is undisputed that a provision in an insurance policy that requires the insured to submit to an [examination under oath] qualifies as a condition precedent to recovery of policy … However, here, submission to the CME clearly could and should have occurred presuit, independent of Curran’s duty to cooperate during litigation. See Soronson v. State Farm Fla. Ins.

Muehleman v. State

34 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 208 · Supreme Court of Florida · Feb 19, 2009

Clearly, Muehleman insisted on the right to represent himself throughout the proceedings. … Those same factors were established in this case.

& SC13-1976 Bradley Westphal v. City of St. Petersburg, etc. and City of St. Petersburg, etc. v. Bradley Westphal

194 So. 3d 311 · Supreme Court of Florida · Jun 9, 2016

to 1968 as a non-judicial statutory scheme of no fault benefits intended to provide full medical care and wage-loss payments does not mean that changes to the workers’ compensation law to reduce or eliminate benefits are immune … Therefore, although this Court has rejected constitutional challenges to the workers’ compensation law in the past, our precedent clearly establishes that, ■ when confronted with a constitutional challenge based on access

State v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad

56 Fla. 617 · Supreme Court of Florida · Jun 15, 1908

No courts other 'than herein specified shall be established in this State, except that the legislature may clothe any railroad commission with judicial powers in all matters connected with the functions of their office.” … This authority is not qualified or limited by the power to regulate demurrage charges expressly given by the statute.

In re Florida Board of Bar Examiners

397 So. 2d 590 · Supreme Court of Florida · Nov 20, 1980

Part III of the examination shall be clearly labeled as to subject matter. … State of Florida shall be advised by the Board whether said applicant’s their scores qualifies qualify as a passing scores.

In Re Adoption of Baby EAW

658 So. 2d 961 · Supreme Court of Florida · Jul 20, 1995

We find that by this language the Legislature clearly did not limit "conduct" to financial support. Conduct generally connotes behavior. … If this was the man who was earning $300.00 to $400.00 a week net which he claimed he was making and using the money to support the natural mother, how could he possibly have qualified for the advice of the Legal Aid Society

Hart v. Bostwick

14 Fla. 162 · Supreme Court of Florida · Apr 15, 1872

This, as it was preceded and qualified by the suggestion that the jury must first find that -the plaintiffs had established their right, should have been . … To impose ■upon the failing - party the payment of a sum of money greater than is necessary to indemnify the prevailing party, would be a punitive judgment, clearly not within the purpose of the law.

Grossman v. State

525 So. 2d 833 · Supreme Court of Florida · Feb 18, 1988

On Issue 10, the expert witness was qualified as a blood splatter expert. … In all three statements, Taylor's role is clearly subordinate while appellant's role as the initiator and triggerman is dominant.