Case law

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Nichols

31 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 358 · Supreme Court of Florida · Jun 1, 2006

Stat. (1999), the district court concluded that the Legislature "clearly and unambiguously" intended for the statute to cover PIP suits. Nichols, 851 So.2d at 745 . … As a threshold matter, we must determine whether a general release qualifies as one of the "relevant conditions" or "nonmonetary terms" of a settlement proposal, which must be described with particularity under rule 1.442

Florida Board of Bar Examiners

364 So. 2d 454 · Supreme Court of Florida · Oct 26, 1978

The issue before us is whether he has established his good moral character, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances under which he sought bankruptcy. 6 The term “good moral character” has no absolute definition … While we recognize that a significant segment of his generation behaved similarly, in our minds his conduct was clearly wrong.

Florida Bar v. Adorno

36 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 174 · Supreme Court of Florida · Apr 21, 2011

In Masztal , the Third District relied on these prior decisions, which clearly set forth these principles. … Here, the record clearly establishes that Adorno knowingly engaged in the activity in question.

Jinkins, as Tax Collector v. Entzminger

102 Fla. 167 · Supreme Court of Florida · Jun 24, 1931

Historically, the power of the Legislature to establish taxing districts for particular public purposes is clear. … The second class of taxing 'districts is where the purpose of creating the district is clearly general and permanent in nature.

Keshbro, Inc. v. City of Miami

801 So. 2d 864 · Supreme Court of Florida · Jul 12, 2001

Angeles, 482 U.S. 304, 318 , 107 S.Ct. 2378 , 96 L.Ed.2d 250 (1987): "`Temporary' takings which, as here, deny a landowner all use of his property, are not different in kind from permanent takings, for which the Constitution clearly … issue is not whether temporary deprivations can constitute takings; it is clear that such regulations can. [12] Instead, the question posed is whether regulations which temporarily deprive one of the use of property can qualify

Peterson v. State

37 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 370 · Supreme Court of Florida · May 17, 2012

Peterson has not established that this argument constituted fundamental error. In Hayward v. … “[T]he concept of ‘opening the door’ allows the admission of otherwise inadmissible testimony to ‘qualify, explain, or limit’ testimony or evidence previously admitted.

Varum v. State

137 Fla. 438 · Supreme Court of Florida · Apr 28, 1939

is filled by the qualified electors of said County at an election called for this purpose and plaintiff in error had contested with other candidates for this office, and plaintiff in *447 error’s theory was that because of … this Court, and requested the trial court to charge or instruct the jury in the following language, viz.: “I further charge you that the State is relying upon testimony of an accomplice that is to say Ferrel McDonald to establish

Tampa Street Railway & Power Co. v. Tampa Suburban Railroad

30 Fla. 595 · Supreme Court of Florida · Jun 15, 1892

This view is clearly sustained by the above cases of Slavin vs. Wheeler, Newcome vs. Light, and Moses vs. Julian, and finds support also in the doctrine of Reams vs. Kearns, Whicher vs. Whicher, and McLaren vs. … S., declaring interest and consanguinity or affinity to be grounds of disqualification and prescribing the practice in such cases, to be an exclusion of any of the other established grounds of disqualification.

Amos v. Mathews

99 Fla. 1 · Supreme Court of Florida · Jan 23, 1930

To hold otherwise would clearly transcend the spirit and purposes of Sec. 6 of Art. 9. … R. 337, "even limit to some extent the exercise of the tremendous, but inherent and well established, powers of taxation and eminent domain."

Robert J. Bailey v. State of Florida

39 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 532 · Supreme Court of Florida · Aug 28, 2014

Deficiency It is well established that trial counsel is not ineffective for relying on a qualified mental health expert to provide the defense with assistance during the guilt phase and mitigation evidence for the … State, 941 So. 2d 1017, 1027 (Fla. 2006) (“This Court has established that defense 4.

Frankenmuth Mut. Ins. Co. v. Magaha

769 So. 2d 1012 · Supreme Court of Florida · Sep 21, 2000

By enacting section 125.031, the Legislature clearly established that agreements such as the one at issue here may not be entered into without approval by a board of county commissioners. … We determine that Florida law clearly establishes that the Board had the power to approve, or, stated another way, ratify, that which was initially an unauthorized agreement after it had been executed.

Bates v. State

34 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 166 · Supreme Court of Florida · Jan 30, 2009

Bates did not allege any facts that could establish that any discrepancy was systematic. … Remaining Claims The remainder of Bates’ rule 3.850 claims are either procedurally barred or clearly without merit based upon this Court’s precedent in respect to these issues.

Andrew Richard Allred v. State of Florida

41 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 5 · Supreme Court of Florida · Jan 14, 2016

She had clearly indicated to Caudill that her testimony would be more aggravating than mitigating. … Day is a well-qualified expert who has testified in other death penalty proceedings, and trial counsel’s reliance on her professional assessment—albeit not a formal diagnosis—was not unreasonable.

Beckwith v. Bailey

119 Fla. 316 · Supreme Court of Florida · May 14, 1935

“You are instructed that intent, insofar as it relates to establishing domicile, governs the matter of the acquisition of the domicile. … So, applying the foregoing rule to the present controversy, this Court cannot say that error on the part of the trial judge has been so clearly made to appear that his action in ordering a new trial should be reversed as

Avila South Condominium Ass'n, Inc. v. Kappa Corp.

347 So. 2d 599 · Supreme Court of Florida · Jun 13, 1977

The complaint in the present case fails to allege facts that would qualify any unit as homestead property, as of the time of the creation of the liens. … Clearly this has to do with "the machinery of the judicial process as opposed to the product thereof." See cases cited in In re Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, supra .

Huff v. State

11 Fla. L. Weekly 451 · Supreme Court of Florida · Aug 28, 1986

As we stated in Huff I: The state's evidence was clearly sufficient to have the case taken to the jury. … The examiner's testimony even more strongly establishes the presence of this aggravating factor when applied to the murder of appellant's mother.

State v. Riechmann

777 So. 2d 342 · Supreme Court of Florida · Feb 24, 2000

They also established that he had a long-lasting "loving relationship" with Kischnick. … As stated above, the record and evidence presented at the evidentiary hearing clearly support the trial court's factual findings that defense counsel's conduct was deficient.

Van Poyck v. State

694 So. 2d 686 · Supreme Court of Florida · Mar 27, 1997

Q: Did you see anything in those records that you could use to establish a nonstatutory mitigating circumstance? … Florida, 458 U.S. 782 , 102 S.Ct. 3368 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1140 (1982). [6] Claims that were raised and resolved on direct appeal include (4), (6), (8), (10)(this material does not qualify as newly discovered evidence and the challenges

Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. Crosby

53 Fla. 400 · Supreme Court of Florida · Jan 15, 1907

Because the witness had not qualified himself to testify as to what is or is not a proper buffer or plate. … The testimony sought is clearly hearsay, as being a statement made by Mrs. Crosby in relation to the accident. 5.

In Re: Amendments to the Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure - 2018 Regular-Cycle Report

258 So. 3d 1254 · Supreme Court of Florida · Dec 6, 2018

The names and addresses of persons listed shall be clearly designated in the following categories: (i) Category A. … Counsel shall be appointed if the child qualifies for such appointment and does not waive counsel in writing subject to the requirements of rule 8.165.