Case law

DEPT. OF AGR. & CONSUMER SERV. v. Polk

568 So. 2d 35 · Supreme Court of Florida · Sep 27, 1990

The Department argues that the trial court, in effect, erroneously ruled that evidence of "public fear" of plants from an infected nursery such as Polk's is inadmissible unless the state establishes that the "fear" is reasonable … Neither provision qualifies the requirement to pay. Thus, the only relevant question is whether a "taking" has occurred.

Rimmer v. State

825 So. 2d 304 · Supreme Court of Florida · Jul 3, 2002

The facts of this case establish that victim Krause was shot and rendered unconscious very shortly after Knight was shot. … While I agree with the majority's conclusion that the appellant's murder of the first victim, Knight, does not qualify as especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel, I cannot agree as to the second.

Penzer v. Transportation Insurance Co.

35 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 73 · Supreme Court of Florida · Jan 28, 2010

According to the doctrine of the last antecedent, "relative and qualifying words, phrases and clauses are to be applied to the words or phrase immediately preceding, and are not to be construed as extending to, or including … The reasoning for this long-established principle is that the insurer, as drafter of the policy language, has an obligation to make the scope of its coverage and any limitations from coverage clear and unambiguous in the

Sanderson's Administrators v. Sanderson

17 Fla. 820 · Supreme Court of Florida · Jun 15, 1880

He must establish his debt by legal evidence when it is denied, ( 6 Paige, 168 ,) and we certainly cannot say that the debt has been established by this evidence. … This testimony establishes that something was due in addition to the payment of $862.64, but it does not establish that the amount paid was due.

In Re: Amendments to Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure

42 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 319 · Supreme Court of Florida · Mar 16, 2017

so much of it as is true and qualify or deny the remainder. … (2) If you have established any trust or are the trustee of a trust, state the following: (a) the date the trust was established. (b) the names and addresses of the trustees.

Dessaure v. State

891 So. 2d 455 · Supreme Court of Florida · Dec 2, 2004

The prior violent felony aggravator alone clearly satisfies the mandates of the United States and Florida Constitutions. See Doorbal v. … As to motive, there was no nexus established between Dessaure's argument with his girlfriend and the murder.

McLean v. State

934 So. 2d 1248 · Supreme Court of Florida · Jul 6, 2006

However, the statute goes on to qualify this general statement by specifying that evidence of other acts of child molestation "may be considered for its bearing on any matter to which it is relevant." … The Tenth Circuit has stated that rule 403 requires the trial court to consider 1) how clearly the prior act has been proved; 2) how probative the evidence is of the material fact it is admitted to prove; 3) how seriously

Floyd v. State

902 So. 2d 775 · Supreme Court of Florida · Mar 24, 2005

Here, the trial court found that Floyd failed to meet his burden under two of the Brady prongs: he failed to establish that the State withheld exculpatory or impeachment evidence from the defense, and he failed to establish … State, 808 So.2d 175 , 182 nn. 13-14 (Fla.2002). [3] Two police reports were introduced to establish Tina Glenn's statements to the police.

In re Amendments to the Florida Rules of Workers' Compensation Procedure

21 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 223 · Supreme Court of Florida · May 16, 1996

(n) “Informal dispute resolution” means the procedure established by section 440,191, Florida Statutes. … The notice shall state clearly the questions at issue or in dispute that the .judge will hear.

Jenkins v. State

35 Fla. 737 · Supreme Court of Florida · Jan 15, 1895

Hatch, as she was well known to many of the witnesses who saw the dead bodies, and clearly recognized by them. … These elementary principles in the introduction of evidence are well established.

Richard Allen Johnson v. Michael D. Crews, etc.

Supreme Court of Florida · Jan 9, 2014

This Court has “established that defense counsel is entitled to rely on the evaluations - 51 - conducted by qualified mental health experts, even if, in retrospect, those evaluations … Johnson’s statement, “I don’t want to say no more” was clearly unequivocal. See Cuervo v.

William James Deparvine v. State of Florida

146 So. 3d 1071 · Supreme Court of Florida · Apr 24, 2014

With respect to sub-issue D, this Court held on direct appeal that the State clearly advanced and argued the theory that the Cheyenne was the object of the carjacking charge. … Even under the broadest interpretation of a carjacking statute, this does not qualify.” Appellant’s Reply Br., p. 24-25 (citing Alvarez v.

In re Florida Bar

225 So. 2d 881 · Supreme Court of Florida · Jun 11, 1969

Wherever used in these rules the following words or terms shall have the meaning herein set forth unless the use thereof shall clearly indicate a different meaning: (a) The accused or accused attorney: a member of The Florida … (f) Court of this State: a state court authorized and established by the Constitution or laws of the State of Florida. (g) Executive Committee: The Executive Committee of the Board of Governors of The Florida Bar.

Owen v. State

986 So. 2d 534 · Supreme Court of Florida · Jul 10, 2008

This is clearly the domain of experts in the field of psychiatry. Of the lay witnesses called at Owen's postconviction hearing, none testified to having observed Owen more recently than 1982. … circumstances, including the testimony of Franklin's parole supervisor to establish that the murder was committed while Franklin was under imprisonment and the testimony of codefendant McCoy to establish that the murder

Columbus Hotel Corp. v. Hotel Management Co.

116 Fla. 464 · Supreme Court of Florida · Sep 11, 1934

Even where a representation is made, if at the time thereof, it is accompanied by a qualified statement which shows that the person making it does not ■intend that it shall be relied on, and which is reasonably calculated … The rule universally applied here on appeal from such a decree, is that a final decree on the facts of an equitable controversy will be upheld by this Court, unless the findings of the Chancellor appear to be clearly wrong

Eugene Ham III v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC & SC18-2143 Laura Foxhall v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC

Supreme Court of Florida · Dec 31, 2020

We also adhere to Justice Joseph Story’s view that “every word employed in [a legal text] is to be expounded in its plain, obvious, and common sense, unless the context furnishes some ground to control, qualify, or enlarge … Action to collect - 13 - an account established under a contract is encompassed by the phrase “any action to enforce the contract.”

& SC13-1787 Steven Douglas Hayward v. State of Florida and Steven Douglas Hayward v. Julie L. Jones, etc.

183 So. 3d 286 · Supreme Court of Florida · Jun 25, 2015

Moreover, prejudice has not been established. … We disagree that ineffective assistance of counsel has been established.

Floyd v. State

808 So. 2d 175 · Supreme Court of Florida · Jan 17, 2002

While trial counsel's objection clearly preserved this issue for appeal, this issue is without merit. … Defendant has not established that the State suppressed this information.

Citizens for Strong Schools, Inc. v. Florida State Board of Education

Supreme Court of Florida · Jan 4, 2019

The State has also adopted rigorous teacher certification, training and evaluation standards, resulting in over 94% of courses being taught by teachers who are “highly qualified” under federal standards. … Therefore, there are clearly judicial standards to guide courts—those that the people of Florida specifically chose to include in article IX, section 1(a).

State of Florida v. Thomas D. Woodel

39 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 383 · Supreme Court of Florida · Jun 5, 2014

Woodel received reasonably competent mental health evaluation and failed to retain reasonably qualified experts to determine the extent of Mr. … Woodel failed to show a meritorious basis for excluding this testimony and clearly did not demonstrate why the admission of this evidence constituted fundamental error. 985 So.2d at 530 .