Case law

Ramirez v. Reemployment Assistance Appeals Commission

135 So. 3d 408 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Feb 7, 2014

The court concluded that the Commission had “ignored” the family-emergency exception, which showed incontrovertibly that the claimant “clearly had a valid reason to leave his employment and to travel overseas to tend to his … Load King Manufacturing Company, 758 So.2d 649 (Fla.2000), that in a case of misconduct by absenteeism, the employer must prove “a serious and identifiable pattern of excessive absenteeism or late arrivals,” which must be established

Bayfront Medical Center, Inc. v. Jones

352 So. 2d 1182 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Oct 19, 1977

More importantly, this intent is clearly apparent without resort to evidence extrinsic to the probated documents. … While at the time the present appellants were not yet established as interested parties, such an award should have more properly awaited the outcome of these proceedings.

RA v. State

725 So. 2d 1240 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jan 27, 1999

As suggested by the state in its brief, Gonzalez stands for the proposition that a tipster can qualify for treatment as a citizen informant, even when his or her identity is not established, if it is clear that the tipster … The caller, who the opinion indicates was clearly a neighbor of the home being burglarized, described the burglary in a manner which clearly reflected that she was describing exactly what was happening, as it was happening

Damianakis v. Philip Morris USA Inc.

155 So. 3d 453 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jan 7, 2015

In their motion, the Defendants argued: To prove that he qualifies as a class member, [Mr. … Farnan had been diagnosed with lung cancer in March 1996, this "clearly demonstrate[ed] her disease had manifested by [the cut-off date]." Id. With regard to Ms.

STEVEN PAUL ANDERSON v. MARY MITCHELL

District Court of Appeal of Florida · Apr 5, 2019

Monroe, 276 So. 2d 547, 548 n.4 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973) (providing that statements given in compliance with section 316.066 are "immune from discovery"). … By deleting this language, the legislature clearly intended to change the statute from a true privilege to a law of admissibility.

Johnston v. Johnston

979 So. 2d 337 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Apr 3, 2008

Rather, the statute clearly establishes the necessary allegations, requisite trial court findings, and conduct that would prohibit disestablishing paternity. §§ 742.18(1)-(3), Fla. Stat. (2006). … Former Husband should be given the opportunity to prove why his petition qualifies under the statute, and Former Wife may then argue why he should not prevail under the statute.

DHRS v. State

599 So. 2d 123 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Mar 27, 1992

The fewer who qualify for detention, the lighter the burden on HRS. But this may not be attributable to HRS. … The legislature has clearly concluded that pre-adjudication detention of a juvenile should not be permitted unless he or she is an escapee or fugitive, or is charged with a very serious offense. [5] Cf. D.B. v.

City of Miami Beach v. State ex rel. Fontainebleau Hotel Corp.

109 So. 2d 204 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Mar 4, 1959

“Only so much of the record as shall be necessary to show jurisdiction in the Supreme Court and establish facts relied upon by the petitioner shall be attached to or filed with the petition. … Also, appellee argues that this court should recognize a suggested likelihood that a certiorari petition, if one should be made pursuant to the notice of intention, would not qualify in the limited jurisdictional field created

Scott v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services

509 So. 2d 1230 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jul 7, 1987

The testimony here established clearly and convincingly that he did not do what he was supposed to. So we have the abandonment. … (emphasis supplied) The father’s attorney replied: “He [the father] may not have complied with the performance agreement but I don’t think that that qualifies as establishing him as having abandoned the child.”

Grauer v. Occidental Life Ins. Co. of Cal.

363 So. 2d 583 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Oct 17, 1978

The two positions are clearly inconsistent. Grauer could not be both, during the same period of time, employed on a full time basis and totally disabled. … Thus a particular state of facts in a pleading may be successfully assumed, and yet the decision on the law of the case may go against the party who has succeeded in the establishment of his own allegations of fact.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Palm Beach Mall, LLC

177 So. 3d 37 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Sep 30, 2015

Specifically, Wells Fargo contends that even if PBM was acting in its own economic interest, it was not immunized from liability under New York law. … The court stated that, “as a matter of law ... the proof did not establish any such tortious conduct, but merely an intentional abandonment which [it] held insufficient to invoke the exception.” Id.

DuPont v. Parker and Company of Florida

190 So. 2d 388 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Sep 27, 1966

The pilot was qualified and had previously checked *390 out on the aircraft. … the findings are clearly against the weight of the evidence.

Lanier v. Tyson

147 So. 2d 365 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Aug 22, 1962

“The plain unambiguous words in the statute clearly lays down a standard for the assessor to follow in assessing agricultural lands. … This was a line established by the assessor without reference to the statutory mandate that agricultural lands were to be assessed on an acreage basis.

University of Miami v. Echarte

585 So. 2d 293 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jun 11, 1991

The failure to maintain insurance negates an owner's tort immunity. Chapman; Lasky. … That qualified finding does not satisfy the Kluger test.

Holzendorf v. Bell

606 So. 2d 645 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Sep 11, 1992

We begin our review, therefore, with one of the established legal principles referred to by the trial judge in his order below; that is, that the referendum power "can be exercised whenever the people through their legislative … The charter, section 17.08, clearly calls for affirmation under oath of each petition by "one of the signers of each copy." This was not done.

Daniels v. State

381 So. 2d 707 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Feb 1, 1979

Normal investigative procedure would include, for example, standard visual or aural surveillance techniques by law enforcement officers, general questioning or interrogation under an immunity grant, use of regular search … Therefore, the federal statute establishes procedures which are designed reasonably to protect the right of privacy, while insuring that necessary wiretaps may be used for investigative purposes.

Sun Bank, NA v. Parkland Design

466 So. 2d 1089 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jan 31, 1985

This is clearly erroneous, since the intangible's nature, here, the account, determines the applicability of the exclusion. … However, the record in this case fails to establish any of the specific facts needed to qualify the assignment for any of these exemptions.

Kuvin v. City of Coral Gables

45 So. 3d 836 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Aug 25, 2010

The inevitable conclusion drawn from its opinion is that virtually any government action done under the guise of protecting the public health, safety, and welfare enjoys judicial immunity under its constrained version of … Kuvin’s, which qualified as a “commercial vehicle” because it weighed three-quarters of a ton. Id. at 771 .

Shavers v. State

86 So. 3d 1218 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · May 2, 2012

Under section 782.04(1)(a)(2), Florida Statutes (2007), robbery is a qualifying felony for the offense of felony murder but grand theft is not. … While this description of the evidence could support the State’s interpretation of events, the jury clearly did not come to the same conclusion.

Goldman v. Campbell

920 So. 2d 1264 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Mar 1, 2006

In other words, section 768.79 should be read to allow fees only in the circumstances stated clearly in the statute. Judges should not broaden the statute's realm by construction or interpretation. … Discretion to forgive harmless rule violations is therefore clearly not inconsistent with the strict construction of attorneys fee statutes.