Case law

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.

State v. M. M.

407 So. 2d 987 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Dec 15, 1981

This is so for the reason that the Legislature, in Section 232.02, clearly intended to distinguish between private schools on the one hand and home instruction by a private tutor on the other. … their mother who is not a qualified private tutor under Section 232.-02(4). *991 We therefore reverse the final order under review in all respects save the adjudication that the minor appellees are dependent children within

De Los Milagros Castellat v. Pereira

225 So. 3d 368 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Aug 16, 2017

The former partner filed a petition in the lower court to establish her parental rights regarding the_ child, including visitation. … The Appellant, Vivian de los Milagros Castellat, filed the petition in the court below seeking to establish parental rights.

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.

The Justice Administrative Commission v. Khurrum Wahid, Esq.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · May 8, 2024

Further, the initial Judge assigned was not death qualified, so the case was handled by a death qualified Judge for most of the three years until the original Judge became death qualified. … Meets any minimum requirements established by thechief judge and by general law for court appointment; 2.

Sutton v. State

929 So. 2d 1105 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · May 10, 2006

We find that it was error to admit this letter as a basis for enhancing Sutton's sentence as a prison releasee reoffender and a habitual felony offender because the letter was clearly hearsay and therefore inadmissible. … Because the release letter was the sole evidence relied upon to establish that Sutton qualified as a prison releasee reoffender and habitual felony offender, we reverse and remand for resentencing.

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.

Spiegel v. Frazel Histo-Path Lab, Inc.

624 So. 2d 790 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Sep 22, 1993

Since her notice of appeal was clearly timely from the rendition of the determination of December 23, 1991, the appeals referee erred in dismissing this cause for lack of timeliness. … For a system which the legislature *792 established to improve the general welfare of its citizens, the complexity of the process and the attendant bureaucracy which administers it appear bent on thwarting that goal.

International Bullion and Metal Brokers, Inc. v. WEST POINTE LAND, LLC.

846 So. 2d 1276 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jun 11, 2003

It is well established that arbitration provisions of a contract are binding on the parties to the contract, as well as on intended third party beneficiaries of the contract. See Martha A. Gottfried, Inc. v. … Thus, the express preclusive language of the arbitration clause clearly evidences the intent that appellee's claim be excluded from arbitration. See Raffa Assocs. AFFIRMED. GROSS and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.

Wackenhut Corp. v. Lippert

591 So. 2d 215 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Oct 30, 1991

The tariff has immunized the airline from liability for all baggage including carry-on baggage as soon as the items are in the "custody of DL." … In this case Wackenhut was established as the agent of Delta, which remained undisputed throughout the proceedings below.

Citizens Property Ins. Corp. v. Ueberschaer

956 So. 2d 483 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · May 25, 2007

This legislative protocol establishes that Citizens is a political subdivision of the state. See, e.g., Bankers Ins. Co. v. Fla. Residential Prop. & Cas. … to clearly articulated state policy).

In Re Estate of McMillian

603 So. 2d 685 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Aug 18, 1992

(Eastpoint) of Eastpoint, Florida "for the establishment of a community center." … This argument loses sight of the fact that the corporate reinstatement statute creates a legal fiction, whose purpose is to fill in gaps in corporate existence, despite the clearly established fact that such gaps have occurred

Huet v. Tromp

912 So. 2d 336 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Sep 9, 2005

(footnote omitted) The philosophy of this type of discovery was clearly expressed in Hickman v. … The court found Lind had not demonstrated the necessary exceptional circumstances to justify invading the work-product immunity and granted certiorari.

VonDrasek v. City of St. Petersburg

777 So. 2d 989 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Sep 1, 2000

Clearly, Reyes requires such notice. Instead, the issue is whether the City could file an evasive answer to the complaint, request and accept from Mrs. … They should clearly and adequately inform the judge [and] the opposing party ... of the position of the pleader."

D.S., A CHILD v. STATE OF FLORIDA

267 So. 3d 414 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Mar 13, 2019

Here, the juvenile qualifies as a sexual offender under the plain language of the statute because he was fifteen years old at the time of the offense, was adjudicated delinquent in 2014, and the court found the molestation … Burris, 875 So. 2d 408, 410 (Fla. 2004) (“[T]he statute’s plain and ordinary meaning must control, unless this leads to an unreasonable result or a result clearly contrary to legislative intent.”

Anderson v. Canvassing & Election Bd.

399 So. 2d 1021 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · May 29, 1981

Those judgments are entitled to be regarded by the courts as presumptively correct and if rational and not *1023 clearly outside legal requirements should be upheld rather than substituted by the impression a particular judge … By establishing separate and distinct procedures for the two situations, the legislature has evidenced an intent that belies appellant's argument.

Grady v. Hausman

12 Fla. L. Weekly 1739 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jul 16, 1987

Additionally, an incidental use of the property for educational, literary, scientific, religious or charitable purposes will *1318 not qualify the property for an exemption. § 196.196(2), Fla. Stat. (1985). … The Diocese contends that the uncontroverted evidence at trial clearly indicated that parcels A and B were used exclusively for religious purposes.

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.

State v. Williams

14 Fla. L. Weekly 517 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Feb 22, 1989

Clearly, a motion to suppress (and the allegations therein) are not ‘evidence’ nor do they comply with the necessity of defendant to ‘present evidence supporting his position’. … Actual or constructive possession of contraband does not qualify under the foregoing grounds.

Brown v. City of Alachua

344 So. 2d 1326 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Apr 28, 1977

Therefore, the doctrine of governmental immunity is applicable to the Defendant.” … This latter view appears to ignore any test that would limit liability once causation is established and is not recognized in Florida.” 120 So.2d at 229 .