Case law

McClain v. State

411 So. 2d 316 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Mar 23, 1982

reasons which are not clear from this record, but which are unimportant to our resolution of the issues on this appeal. [2] There is no question here that were the unavailability requirement met, this former testimony would qualify … But if he was, the record clearly reflects that no effort was made by the State to have the subpoena enforced. [5] At oral argument, defendant's counsel conceded that Daniel's former testimony might reasonably be viewed as

Kennedy v. State

385 So. 2d 1020 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · May 21, 1980

The State made no attempt to rely upon the felony murder rule to establish premeditated design. … We also reject the State's argument that the statements of the deceased qualify as res gestae utterances and are thus excepted from the hearsay rule. As defined in Smith v.

Evans v. State

911 So. 2d 796 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Feb 22, 2005

However, the court qualified this requirement by stating that it applies only to custodial interrogations. … Agent Turton did not suggest that the defendant would have a form of immunity if he agreed to speak with the officers.

Dorsett v. State

944 So. 2d 1207 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Dec 20, 2006

While the discovery violation was clearly resolved, the record is not as clear with respect to the trial court's pretrial ruling regarding the admissibility of the four uncharged transactions. … These do not qualify as inseparable crimes, for crimes do not qualify as being inseparable "[w]hen there is a clear break between the prior conduct and the charged conduct or it is not necessary to describe the charged conduct

Williams v. State

560 So. 2d 1304 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Apr 27, 1990

I find the facts in Jaggers , relied on by appellant, are clearly distinguishable as noted below. … While the child's trial testimony does establish the act of penile sodomy, it does not, upon fair analysis, establish the absence of digital penetration in addition.

West Flagler Associates, Ltd. v. Department of Business & Professional Regulation

139 So. 3d 419 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · May 27, 2014

depart from such a construction unless it is clearly erroneous or unreasonable.” … The Division’s interpretation would create a discontinuity or interruption in the otherwise “consecutive years” approach that the statute establishes.

ANDY STRICKLAND v. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA

261 So. 3d 700 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Dec 12, 2018

allege the following: (1) there is a bona fide dispute between the parties; (2) the plaintiff has a justiciable question as to the existence or nonexistence of some right, status, immunity … Indeed, both 4IfAnimal Services had instead preliminarily determined that Strickland's dog was dangerous, Strickland would clearly have been entitled to notice and a hearing before any final determination

Wise v. Western Union Telegraph Company

177 So. 2d 765 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jul 29, 1965

Section 317.171 is in derogation of the common law and should be strictly construed in the sense that no situation should be held within its operation to which the legislature did not clearly intend to accord the privilege … It will be observed that the privilege is qualified by permitting disclosure of the identity of persons involved in an accident when such persons deny presence at the accident. The only theory upon which Mr.

Valdez v. CHIEF JUDGE, ELEVENTH JUD.

640 So. 2d 1164 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jul 5, 1994

legitimate purpose and goal of the chief judge in adopting the administrative order, as amended, and the fact that the order was implemented upon the recommendation of the Pretrial Release Review Committee, the order is clearly … Walker, 88 So.2d 312 (Fla. 1956). [3] As identified in Administrative Orders 82-18 and 90-24, pre-bond hearing release to the custody of the Dade County Pretrial Release Program of certain qualified defendants will occur.

Espinosa v. SPARBER, SHEVIN

586 So. 2d 1221 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Sep 17, 1991

These children are obviously not in privity with these lawyers and do not otherwise qualify under the will-drafting exception to the privity requirement. … , testamentary intent may only be established through the will itself.

Conner v. Sullivan

160 So. 2d 120 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jul 25, 1963

” instead of a “producer” and established for him a base quota of 45,439. … While this is an extreme example, a person who produced for market but one crate of celery during the 1960-61 season would qualify as a producer, while Sullivan, who had produced and marketed celery in Florida since 1939,

Department of Transp. v. Morehouse

350 So. 2d 529 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Oct 4, 1977

as candidates for public office, but also had qualified for office before receiving approval. … Morehouse was not apprised of the disapproval until after the deadline for qualifying to run.

Department of Revenue Ex Rel. Poynter v. Bunnell

51 So. 3d 543 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Dec 21, 2010

Bun-nell, to establish paternity and her right to child support. … Record evidence in this matter indicates that the mother and father live at separate addresses, and that Poynter had qualified for and was receiving TANF funds.

601 Cuda Properties LLC v. Monroe County Board of County Commissioners

District Court of Appeal of Florida · Mar 25, 2026

section titled “Sovereignty Submerged Lands” that indicated the proposed work was to occur on lands “located on SSLs – lands owned by the State of Florida” and that “[t]he District ha[d] determined that the activity qualifies … that it was somehow misled or lulled into inaction, Appellant has failed to establish entitlement to equitable tolling of the filing deadline.

A.L. ex rel. P.L.B. v. Jackson County School Board

127 So. 3d 758 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Nov 26, 2013

Stat. (2012), and concluded that the proceedings appellant initiated qualified. … Clearly, at the time of the filing of the Amended Petition, Respondent and Respondent's counsel knew or should have known that the claims made in the Amended Petition were not supported by the material facts necessary to

Bowden v. State

137 So. 2d 621 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Feb 7, 1962

There may be minor errors in a few of the court's rulings adverse to the defendant, but they are clearly insufficient to justify a reversal of the judgment. … No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor

PEOPLE'S TRUST INSURANCE COMPANY, etc. v. PROGRESSIVE EXPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY

District Court of Appeal of Florida · Dec 8, 2021

exclusion” which directs us to exclude any claim for property damage “arising out of the operation of . . . machinery or equipment that is on, attached to, or part of, a land vehicle that would qualify under the definition … Where, as here, the record clearly established that the damage at issue was caused by the mounted crane, in operational use, on a vehicle that would otherwise qualify as mobile equipment, the trial court correctly granted

Coca-Cola Co. Foods Division v. Sutton

379 So. 2d 1319 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Feb 14, 1980

Furthermore, there was no action taken by appellants which would qualify as filing a notice of controversy. § 440.34(1), Fla.Stat. (1975). … Additional evidence may be taken, if necessary, to establish the proper average weekly wage. Reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion. MILLS, C. J., and McCORD, J., concur.

Austin v. State

12 Fla. L. Weekly 106 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Dec 18, 1986

Although Lovelace was not offered anything in exchange for this information, he was later granted immunity from prosecution by the state. … However, case law has clearly established that the record must reflect an affirmative selection by the defendant before the trial court can sentence pursuant to the guidelines. Utsey v.

Brown v. State

24 So. 3d 671 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Dec 18, 2009

Arguably, Gant establishes an entirely new warrant-less search exception that requires some particularized belief that the place of arrest contains evidence. … Gonzalez, 578 F.3d 1130, 1133 (9th Cir.2009) (holding good faith exception cannot be applied). 9 We also find noteworthy that the Gant Court recognized that qualified immunity will shield officers from civil liability for