Case law

Brevard County Board of County Commissioners v. Williams

715 So. 2d 1100 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Aug 13, 1998

The JCC found that a causal connection was established between the psychiatric condition and the industrial accident. … This waiver of future psychiatric and psychological benefits is clearly invalid. But any impropriety as to the settlement’s bar of future psychiatric benefits does not necessarily render the entire agreement voidable.

School Board of Miami-Dade County and Putnam County School Board v. Office of the Attorney General, Department of Legal Affairs, State of Florida

District Court of Appeal of Florida · Aug 14, 2024

(establishing Halifax Hospital Medical Center’s power to sue and be sued); Ch. 2000-439, § 4, Laws of Fla. (establishing Lee Memorial Health System’s power to sue and be sued). … If the Legislature can abrogate the long- established common-law immunity of elected officials, it certainly can abrogate any asserted common-law authority of the Attorney General to dispose of local entities’ legal claims

Halifax Hospital Medical Center v. Office of the Attorney General

District Court of Appeal of Florida · Aug 14, 2024

(establishing Halifax Hospital Medical Center’s power to sue and be sued); Ch. 2000-439, § 4, Laws of Fla. (establishing Lee Memorial Health System’s power to sue and be sued). … If the Legislature can abrogate the long- established common-law immunity of elected officials, it certainly can abrogate any asserted common-law authority of the Attorney General to dispose of local entities’ legal claims

Adjmi v. State

139 So. 2d 179 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Apr 9, 1962

As to the amount received, it was sufficient to qualify as grand larceny. *185 We turn now to a discussion of appellants' second point. … We think not, because the statements clearly refer to the failure of the defense to make complete their affirmative proposition of a sale.

Nero Cooke v. State of Florida

174 So. 3d 628 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Sep 16, 2015

It is quintessentially the duty of counsel to provide [the] client with available advice about an issue like deportation and the failure to do so clearly satisfies the first prong of the Strickland analysis … As a result, he did not meet section 1229b’s other two requirements for a defendant to qualify for discretionary cancellation of removal.

STEFANO VERSACE v. URUVEN, LLC

District Court of Appeal of Florida · Oct 12, 2022

Following Hector Supply Co., other courts have excluded extrinsic evidence where the account documents clearly indicated the legal form of 3  ownership. … Beal Bank did not qualify its statement that an express designation of tenancy by the entireties “ends the inquiry.” Id. at 60.

Heggan v. State

745 So. 2d 1066 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Nov 10, 1999

This purpose was clearly accomplished because Massey and his attorney had actual notice in advance of the hearing. … On remand, the trial court will allow the state to present evidence to establish that the defendant qualifies for sentencing as a habitual felony offender.

Achumba v. Neustein

793 So. 2d 1013 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jul 6, 2001

This is true for several reasons, not the least of which is that chapter 742, Florida Statutes, not the Wrongful Death Act, is the exclusive remedy for establishing paternity in Florida. … The majority posits that because Smoot has a "legal" father, she cannot qualify as a statutory "survivor" of her natural father for purposes of a wrongful death act.

Meus v. State

968 So. 2d 706 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Nov 28, 2007

The Test for Establishing an Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Claim The test for establishing an ineffective assistance of counsel claim is a two-pronged one: (1) The claimant must identify particular acts or omissions of … Third, the trial developed as a battle of experts who were clearly aligned with one side or the other. The State's case against Mr. Meus was entirely circumstantial. Because Mr.

Gulf Management, Inc., and Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc. v. Talmadge Wall

District Court of Appeal of Florida · Nov 29, 2023

Between 1993 and the 2003 enactment, only catastrophic injuries qualified for PTD. See ch. 93- 415, § 20, at 118–19, Laws of Fla. … III With all of this in mind, we look at whether there was competent, substantial evidence to support the JCC’s factual findings and his determination that Wall established he qualified for PTD benefits.

Padgett v. Sims

701 So. 2d 357 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Sep 3, 1997

Able clearly qualifies as an expert witness under the more general provisions of section 766.102(2)(c)2. See Green v. Goldberg, 630 So.2d 606 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Catron v. … Section 766.102(2)(c), Florida Statutes (1995), provides: The purpose of this subsection is to establish a relative standard of care for various categories arid classifications of health care providers.

Belz Investco v. GICSA

721 So. 2d 787 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Dec 9, 1998

The Florida Rules of Civil Procedure clearly permit a plaintiff to allege causes of action against multiple defendants. See Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.210(a). … The sources for my investment will include GICSA as well as our established banking and investment firm sources, if necessary. ....

Rodriguez v. State

284 So. 2d 1 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Oct 3, 1973

One isolated phone call of this nature would not be sufficient to establish subject’s Modus Operandi. … Barring extraordinary circumstances which may be shown to exist in any given case, the pattern has been rather clearly established in courts of this country that if the observation of the alleged offense is not farther remote

ZB v. Department of Juvenile Justice

938 So. 2d 584 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Sep 27, 2006

The RAI score must establish a need for detention. Section 985.215(2)(a) does authorize detention for a child alleged to be an escapee or absconder from a probation program. … Clearly, G.T.'s failure to perform community service, write an essay or attend a program are not criminal offenses under the Florida Statutes. [2] See §§ 985.501(1)(a) and 985.502, Fla. Stat. (2005).

Martinez v. Ascensores Servas, S.A.

89 So. 3d 956 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Apr 18, 2012

Laplana Asociados and Ascensores entered into a pre-incorporation business agreement to establish a joint venture, later known as Servas USA Elevators, LLC (Servas USA), in Florida to manufacture, sell, and maintain elevators … Lastly, the trial court awarded $644,500 to Ascensores for expenses it incurred in its preparatory work to qualify for UL approval, pursuant to the parties’ original pre-incorporation business agreement.

Tennessee Corporation v. Lamb Brothers Const. Co.

265 So. 2d 533 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Aug 2, 1972

That question is not before us because the complaint herein is in neither category set out above; that is to say, it alleges facts which are neither clearly within the exclusion nor clearly within coverage. … We note, however, that the Restatement "substantial factor" test is so qualified by comments therein that it approaches the Florida foreseeability doctrine.

Pix Shoes of Miami, Inc. v. Howarth

201 So. 2d 80 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jul 11, 1967

One of the three others clearly testified that the verdict was in fact a quotient verdict. … One of the jurors testified unequivocably that this verdict was arrived at in a manner containing all of the necessary elements to qualify as a quotient verdict.

Lowy v. Roberts

453 So. 2d 886 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Aug 7, 1984

The content of the will must be clearly and distinctly proved by the testimony of two disinterested witnesses, or, if a correct copy is provided, it shall be proved by one disinterested witness. [5] Thus, we do not decide … 1940) ("correct copy" need not contain copies of signatures of testator or subscribing witnesses); In re Estate of Maynard, 253 So.2d 923 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971) (same) or if, assuming that it is, the expert document examiner qualifies

North Miami Medical Center, Ltd. v. Miller

896 So. 2d 886 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Mar 2, 2005

"without insurance"), that court, however, never adjudicated whether "going bare" or "opting out" through subsection 5(g) is expressly authorized and therefore, serves as a defense to immunize the hospital. … by one of the following methods: (a) Establishing and maintaining an escrow amount consisting of cash or assets eligible for deposit....

T.M.H. v. D.M.T.

79 So. 3d 787 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Dec 23, 2011

Moreover, chapters 63 and 382 do not establish parentage or parental rights. … Lucas qualifies as a sperm donor.” Id. at 318. Unlike the instant case, the court in Lamaritata concluded that the man was a donor because a contract said he was a donor.