Case law

Goicochea v. Lopez

140 So. 3d 1102 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jun 11, 2014

The Plaintiffs reliance on Cox when seeking to limit the defendants’ collective IMEs to one per specialty was misplaced, as Cox is clearly distinguishable from the instant case. … Based on these allegations, the Plaintiff has pitted codefen-dant against codefendant, with each code-fendant attempting to establish that the Plaintiffs alleged injuries are not a result of their specific negligence, but

In the Interest of A.B. v. R.B.

186 So. 3d 544 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Mar 6, 2015

The trial court also noted that the interviewer in the video “did qualify her to indicate whether or not she knew the difference between a truth and a lie, and she indicated she did.” … When the trial court grants an injunction based on improperly admitted evidence, harmful error is clearly established. See Sanchez v. Marin, 138 So.3d 1165, 1169 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014).

WILLIAM PAUL DABBS v. STATE OF FLORIDA

District Court of Appeal of Florida · Nov 17, 2021

Stedman, 238 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 1970) (trial judge’s statement that he philosophically opposed granting immunity to testifying witnesses constitutes a disagreement of law amounting to judicial bias not legally sufficient for … A judge should participate in establishing, maintaining, and enforcing high standards of conduct, and shall personally observe those standards so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary may be preserved.

MacHado v. Foreign Trade, Inc.

478 So. 2d 405 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Nov 5, 1985

Although the witness was a qualified document analyst, the basis of his ultimate opinion did not involve document analysis. … In the present case, Sounds clearly did not acquiesce in the bifurcation of the trial.

Florida Department of Revenue v. Kissel

281 So. 2d 58 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jul 31, 1973

were probated in New York where the trusts were established. … Simpson, 59 So.2d 751 , has clearly established the law of this State to be that where there are two or more trustees residing in different states, the intangible personal property owned by the trust will be taxable in the

Lutheran Services Florida, Inc. v. Department of Children & Families

199 So. 3d 286 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Nov 25, 2015

“[I]f [an administrative] agency’s decision is not supported by substantial, competent evidence established in the record ..., it will be overturned. … Accordingly, we do not address whether guardian fees qualify as any of the other ‘‘[rjequired deductions” enumerated in 42 C.F.R. § 435.725 (c) or any of the ”[o]p-tional deductionfs]” listed in 42 C.F.R. § 435.725 (d). .

Stuart Yacht Club & Marina v. STATE, DNR

625 So. 2d 1263 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Oct 6, 1993

The statutory scheme established by the legislature here fully supports this construction. … Indeed, the fact that Stuart Yacht Club fits within the statutory definition of a small business, and yet has two 10,000 gallon tanks, clearly bears this out.

First Realty Corp. v. Standard Steel Treating Co.

268 So. 2d 410 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Aug 7, 1972

STANDARD STEEL TREATING COMPANY, a Michigan Corporation Qualified to Do Business in the State of Florida, and Bahama Hotel, Inc., a Florida Corporation, Appellees. No. 71-266. … If the facts are established beyond dispute the question then arises whether one party or the other should be awarded a judgment as a matter of law ; and that question is to be decided by the trial judge using the established

Holley v. State

523 So. 2d 688 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Mar 30, 1988

Mullen Jr. was qualified as an expert pathologist and testified that the probability that appellant fathered the victim's child was 98.2 percent and possibly higher. … Additionally, the jury was clearly instructed that it could accept or reject Dr. Mullen's testimony interpreting the test results.

State v. Stahl

206 So. 3d 124 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Dec 7, 2016

that the trial court violated a clearly established principle of law, issuance of a writ of certiorari is "an apt remedy." … The State went so far as to agree to give Stahl immunity for the act of providing the passcode.

Martin County Conservation Alliance v. Martin County

73 So. 3d 856 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Nov 4, 2011

We then ordered Appellants and their counsel to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed upon them pursuant to section 57.105(1), Florida Statutes, for filing an appeal where standing was clearly not present. … Were we to determine that complex cases are immune from sanctions under section 57.105, we would be abdicating our duty and violating Article II, section 3 of the Florida Constitution.

Cole v. State

714 So. 2d 479 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jun 1, 1998

Part IX establishes the Statewide Coordinator for Substance Abuse Impairment Prevention and Treatment. … Clearly, Cole's contempt conviction was based on wholly erroneous findings of fact.

State v. Storer

920 So. 2d 754 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Feb 10, 2006

those situations where `there has been a violation of a clearly established principle of law resulting in a miscarriage of justice.'" … We conclude that the trial court's pretrial ruling does not depart from any clearly established rule of evidence or substantive law.

Fortune Insurance Co. v. Sims

10 Fla. L. Weekly 567 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Mar 6, 1985

.- The court further noted that While concededly [the agency president’s] testimony as to the routine practice establishes no presumption that it was followed in a particular instance, it is nonetheless sufficient to support … This is a broad definition and would clearly seem to include insurance covering medical expenses.

Diaz De La Portilla v. FLA. ELECTIONS COM'N

857 So. 2d 913 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Sep 10, 2003

He resigned his seat in the House of Representatives and qualified for the election for the State Senate seat. Three other candidates qualified. … The stipulation established that $10,000 went into the campaign account on November 30.

Butler v. Bay Center/Chubb Insurance Co.

947 So. 2d 570 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Dec 29, 2006

Brewer, 896 So.2d 931, 933 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)("Section 440.13(2)(c), Florida Statutes, does not authorize the JCC to order treatment with a specific physician, where the E/C promptly offers qualified alternatives."). … We have recognized that it is occasionally "difficult to clearly demarcate the distinction between a substantive right and a procedural or remedial enactment." Paulk v. Sch.

Peiman v. Peiman

829 So. 2d 307 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Oct 25, 2002

The facts clearly evidenced the Former Husband's desire to be represented by counsel. … The court could have established an arrearage, as it did when it set the permanent child support.

Symbol Mattress of Fla., Inc. v. Royal Sleep Products, Inc.

832 So. 2d 233 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Dec 6, 2002

In seeking a change of venue the defendant has the burden of clearly proving that the venue selected by the plaintiff is improper—it is insufficient to merely establish that venue is proper elsewhere. … Thus, in order to determine whether Orange County qualified as being a proper venue alternative, the trial court was required to determine the nature of the underlying relief sought by Symbol Mattress.

Storer Communications, Inc. v. State, Dept. of Legal Affairs

591 So. 2d 238 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jul 31, 1991

Thus, appellants' marketing of ENCORE does not qualify as a negative option plan as that term is used in the FTC regulations. … Therefore, to obtain the temporary injunction pursuant to section 501.204 the Department had to clearly establish that the ENCORE marketing plan was unfair or deceptive.

BARBARA NAMON, etc. v. KAREN NAMON ELDER

District Court of Appeal of Florida · Nov 24, 2021

Because such an injunction is properly entered only under extraordinary circumstances, “[t]he party appealing the denial . . . carries a heavy burden to demonstrate that the court’s ruling was clearly improper.” … In this regard, the statute creates “a self-executing, absolute immunity to claims,” and it is not subject to extension or waiver. May v. Ill. Nat’l Ins. Co., 771 So. 2d 1143, 1156 (Fla. 2000).