Case law

Mitchell v. Grapes

146 So. 2d 591 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Nov 20, 1962

The will was probated; Ruth was qualified as executrix and is now serving in that capacity. … The first two situations stated present no particular difficulty in most cases and are clearly not involved in this suit.

Holdsworth v. Crews

129 So. 2d 153 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Apr 12, 1961

Without the qualifying language, the instructions were nearly identical to plaintiff's instructions Nos. 8, 9 and 10 in the instant case. … In regard to the instructions quoted, the court in the Lindsay case held that if the instructions had been given without the qualifying language "they would have properly and clearly defined the meaning of `last clear chance

CBS Outdoor Inc. v. Florida Department of Transportation

124 So. 3d 383 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Oct 23, 2013

Section 479.25(1) establishes which sign owners can receive redress when the visibility of a sign is screened or blocked due to the construction of a sound barrier. … Sentence 1 of § 479.25(1), says rather clearly that the owner of a sign may increase its height if the sign “conforms to [certain] state and federal requirements.” Id.

Coleman v. Valley Forge Ins. Co.

432 So. 2d 1368 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jun 15, 1983

At the trial, Valley Forge stipulated that the car qualified as a substitute automobile as defined under subsection (d) of the definition of "Your covered auto." … Established principles of insurance policy construction require that any ambiguities be construed against the insurer. Stuyvesant Insurance Co. v. Butler, 314 So.2d 567 (Fla. 1975).

Raben-Pastal v. City of Coconut Creek

14 Fla. L. Weekly 271 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jan 25, 1989

1983 which provides: Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of any State ... subjects ... any citizen of the United States ... to the deprivation of rights, privileges, or immunities … While cities have been held to be “persons” subject to liability under the provisions of this act, the kind of municipal activity that may give rise to liability has not been clearly defined.

T.D.W. v. State

137 So. 3d 574 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Apr 30, 2014

We found that the section 90.954(1) “lost or destroyed” exception to the best evidence rule did not apply because “[t]he state’s inability to show the video recording due to temporary technical difficulties does not qualify … As the proponent of the evidence, the State had the burden of establishing its admissibility.

Janovic v. Janovic

814 So. 2d 1096 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Mar 15, 2002

The indemnification provision clearly indicated the parties' intent to maintain level monthly payments pursuant to their property settlement agreement. … In Abernethy , the requisite intent was established by the inclusion in the dissolution judgment of the indemnification provision, but as the California court recognized, while a party's claim may be stronger if there is

Phares v. Cowles

9 Fla. L. Weekly 2432 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Nov 14, 1984

Because the trial judge desired that a survey be furnished clearly delineating the parameters of the road in question, the entry of a written final judgment was deferred until the receipt thereof. … The appeal by Cowles and the cross appeal by Phares were both dismissed, thus placing the parties in a position wherein neither of them could be said to have qualified as a “prevailing party.”

Marston v. Wood

425 So. 2d 582 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Dec 22, 1982

However, its participation in that respect was merely a winnowing process by which it removed from the full faculty the burden of having to evaluate those applicants who clearly were either not qualified or less than fully … qualified.

Drain v. State

601 So. 2d 256 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · May 29, 1992

The second and third "which" provisos are inclusive conditions which qualify and limit the basic broad inclusive description. … In addition the information should clearly allege the defendant's intent to deceive and to cause the imitation substance to be mistaken for some specified controlled substance.

Mitchell v. State

11 Fla. L. Weekly 2009 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Aug 7, 1986

During the trial, the State also introduced the testimony of Izeal Thornton, who was granted immunity. … Turning to the second issue raised, it is well settled that a motion for a new trial is addressed to the sound judicial discretion of the trial court and that, unless an abuse of discretion is clearly shown, the action of

Palm Beach Cty. Sch. Bd. v. State, Unemp. App. Com'n

576 So. 2d 362 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Mar 6, 1991

However, if she were to refuse work offered and for which she is qualified, then she would be disqualified for benefits. § 443.101(2), Fla. Stat. (1989). … The legislature has clearly stated that the purpose of the UCL is to lighten the economic burden on the unemployed worker and his family. § 443.02, Fla. Stat. (1979). [§ 443.021, Fla. Stat. (1989)].

Williams v. State, Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement

647 So. 2d 317 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Dec 20, 1994

filling a regularly established position for the total employment.” … Because the statute clearly contemplates that both salary and fees *321 should be used in calculating retirement benefits, petitioner’s amended petition should be granted. 7.

Sloban v. Florida Board of Pharmacy

982 So. 2d 26 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Apr 3, 2008

However, the board may establish by rule requirements for reapplication by applicants whose licenses have been permanently revoked. … Further, section 456.072(6) provides no standards or guidelines regarding when the Board should exercise its discretion to establish reapplication rules.

Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Professional Engineers v. Florida Society of Professional Land Surveyors

10 Fla. L. Weekly 2081 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Sep 4, 1985

The rule sets forth those generally accepted types of “surveying” which qualified professional engineers have as a matter of course performed in this state. … Section 120.54(14), Florida Statutes (1983), provides: No agency has inherent rulemaking authority; nor has any agency authority to establish penalties for violation of a rule unless the Legislature, when establishing a penalty

McDonald v. DEPT. OF PRO. REGULATION

582 So. 2d 660 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jun 13, 1991

he is said to have violated; yet, no expert testimony was presented to establish these standards. … of an accident, and their doing so in this case is in direct violation of established Florida law.

In Re Estate of Lenahan

12 Fla. L. Weekly 1668 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jul 10, 1987

Grimsley was qualified as an expert in the area of estates and trusts. … Appellant has not clearly, definitely and fully shown that she was unduly prejudiced by the allowance of Grimsley's testimony. Alberger v. Harvison, 342 So.2d 537 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1977).

State v. Foster

674 So. 2d 747 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Apr 26, 1996

be, or willfully takes or uses any name, title, addition, or description implying that he is qualified, or recognized by law as qualified, to act as a lawyer in this state, and any person entitled to practice who shall violate … The law is clearly established that the states have a compelling interest in the regulation of the practice of the professions and, particularly, in the setting of minimum standards for entry into the practice of law.

McDonald's Corp. v. Dept. of Transp.

13 Fla. L. Weekly 2663 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Dec 9, 1988

The sign here under consideration is clearly in violation of these provisions. … And, as the DOT noted in its final order, appellant's future plan for a playground on the property containing the sign is not sufficient to qualify for an on-premise exemption.

Onewest Bank, FSB v. Jasinski

173 So. 3d 1009 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jun 12, 2015

The court also stated that as an employee of OneWest, Marks was not qualified to testify about the records made by IndyMac. … This clearly demonstrates Marks’ personal knowledge of and competency to testify about OneWest’s mortgage servicing business records practices.