Case law

Woodard v. Pa. Nat. Mut. Ins. Co.

534 So. 2d 716 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Dec 16, 1988

Woodard has obtained judgment against both Fairfield and Yergy, so he has clearly satisfied the second requirement. … Apart from the fact that in neither case did the vehicle involved qualify as an "uninsured motor vehicle," in each of those cases liability insurance on that vehicle had been paid and the plaintiff was trying to effectively

Childers v. State

931 So. 2d 86 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Feb 2, 2006

And not only could you be charged with perjury, but the immunity provisions go away; right? A. I would think so. (Emphasis added). … Such opinion testimony regarding a witness’ reputation for truthfulness is clearly inadmissible. See Antone v.

SDI Quarry a/k/a Atlantic Civil, Inc. v. Gateway Estates Park Condominium Association

249 So. 3d 1287 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jun 22, 2018

State, 12 So. 3d 199, 205 (Fla. 2009) (“A witness may be qualified as an expert through specialized knowledge, training, or education, which is not limited to academic, scientific, or technical knowledge. … Whether the district court’s determination that the sonic booms caused the damage is clearly erroneous. 3.

National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n v. Associated Press

18 So. 3d 1201 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Oct 1, 2009

The right to inspect a public record in Florida is not one that is merely established by legislation, it is a right demanded by the people. … The trial court concluded that the two documents did not include any information that would qualify as an education record.

Rodriguez v. State

441 So. 2d 1129 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Nov 22, 1983

But even if there otherwise might have been a jurisdictional bar, by the nature of the agreement appellant clearly waived any jurisdictional impediments. Cf. Tucker v. … "The Constitution does not require that sentencing be a [technical] game in which a wrong move by a judge means immunity for the prisoner." Farber v. State, 409 So.2d at 72 , citing Bozza v.

Northcutt v. ORLANDO UTILITIES COM'N

614 So. 2d 612 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Feb 19, 1993

The parties agree that the Indian River Plant constitutes "property owned by a municipality". [4] The evidence at trial established that the Indian River Plant is used exclusively for generating electricity. … As it reads it clearly applies to such public property used for public purposes wheresoever located. Traverse City v. Blair Township, 157 N.W. at 84 . In Town of Hamden v.

Department of Children & Family Services v. Heart of Adoptions, Inc.

947 So. 2d 1212 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jan 26, 2007

We note that the Third Amended Administrative Order No. 2005-18.4 of the Twelfth Judicial Circuit established five administrative divisions: civil, criminal, family, juvenile, and probate/guardianship. … Rule 9.130 is clearly written to regulate the appeal of nonfinal orders. The civil order on appeal in this case is not included in subsection (3) of rule 9.130.

Beckwith v. State

386 So. 2d 836 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Aug 7, 1980

In Hewitt, the Supreme Court decision that initially set the standard for venue changes in cases of this sort, venue was changed only after the trial court "exhausted a venire of 125 persons without obtaining a qualified … The State correctly points out that the critical issue is not the number of prospective jurors exhausted but whether the test conducted, together with the affidavits and other evidence, is sufficient to establish that it

Colucci v. Kar Kare Automotive Group, Inc.

918 So. 2d 431 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jan 25, 2006

This limitation clearly modified the Covenant Not to Compete contained in the Non-Competition Agreement signed by the parties in March 1999. … With all due respect, the court's approach is a departure from long established principles of contract law.

Tmh v. Dmt

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. … Id. at 541 , 62 S.Ct. 1110 ("Sterilization of those who have thrice committed grand larceny with immunity for those who are embezzlers is a clear, pointed, unmistakable discrimination.").

McCauslin v. O'CONNER

985 So. 2d 558 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Feb 8, 2008

However, under De La Rosa , the complaining party must also establish that the information is material to jury service in the case. … Several individuals clearly had information that was not drawn out by the broad and general questions asked by plaintiff's counsel.

Alleyn v. Reemployment Assistance Appeals Commission

169 So. 3d 1289 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Aug 4, 2015

Accordingly, the claimant is qualified for the receipt of benefits. … Although the Commission may reject the referee’s conclusions of law without limitation, it may not modify the facts to reach a different legal conclusion, rely on facts that were not established at the hearing, or rely on

Trushin v. State

384 So. 2d 668 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · May 20, 1980

Elting, 29 Kan. 397 (1883) — was clearly established. The facts that Trushin may have acted only out of a misguided sense of public service and received no pecuniary benefit himself are irrelevant. Diehl v. … 17] Of course, there neither is nor could be a contention either that the state may not legitimately forbid the purchase or the attempted purchase of a vote, or that words which may be employed in such an undertaking are immunized

Steiner v. State

10 Fla. L. Weekly 1261 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · May 21, 1985

employed to provide a description of a matter of legal substance, [3] the entire clause amounts to a tautology: a "clear and convincing" reason is one which is ultimately deemed acceptable on review, that is, one which clearly … State, 454 So.2d 90 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984), or specifically does not qualify for such an inclusion. Jean v. State, 455 So.2d 1083 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Bogan v. State, 454 So.2d 686 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); contra Albritton v.

Myers v. State

426 So. 2d 986 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jan 5, 1983

Appellant argues that all of these criteria were satisfied and that clearly Sheffield's freedom of movement was significantly restrained. … Even assuming that Green's intention to "arrest" as qualified above, was communicated to Sheffield, and that a constructive detention could be inferred from the circumstances, this would establish only the first three elements

C.P., THE FATHER v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES

District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jul 14, 2021

“A trial court’s finding of clear and convincing evidence is reversible only if clearly erroneous or lacking in evidentiary support.” S.S. v. D.L., 944 So. 2d 553, 557 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). … Under section 39.01(1), “[t]he qualifying phrase ‘while being able’ excludes involuntary abandonment.” B.F. v. State, Dep’t of Children & Families, 237 So. 3d 390, 393 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) (quoting T.S. ex rel. D.H. v.

Daniels v. State

634 So. 2d 187 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Mar 15, 1994

Moreover, Daniels did not establish the necessity for severance. … Unless clearly erroneous, the trial court's determination will be sustained. Id.

AURORA PUMP, ETC. v. Goulds Pumps, Inc.

424 So. 2d 70 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Dec 14, 1982

Were JEA to have accepted the deduction offered by Goulds, however, Goulds' fully evaluated bid would have been $6,923,963, establishing it as the lowest responsible bidder for the contract. … NOTES [1] Paragraph M provides: "At the time and place announced for the opening of proposals, each technical proposal from a qualified bidder which has been received prior to the announced time for opening of proposals,

Boozer v. Stalley

146 So. 3d 139 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Sep 5, 2014

It is well established that a third person can enforce a contract entered into between others for his benefit. See 81 A.L.R. 1279 . … We conclude that any communications between [the insurer] and its personal counsel are clearly protected by the attorney-client privilege.

Bradenton Group, Inc. v. Dept. of Legal Affairs

701 So. 2d 1170 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Oct 3, 1997

bingo and would lack the immunities to which it would have been entitled had it met the necessary criteria. … That applies only to organizations or entities who are qualified to play bingo under the statute, but do it in contravention thereof. Id.