Case law

AT & T Corp. v. State, Department of Management Services

201 So. 3d 852 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Oct 21, 2016

fair and open competition, AT & T identifies three specific points of error in the MFN-2 ITN process: (1) the Department erred by inviting CR MSA/Harris to negotiate without first determining whether CR MSA/Harris was a qualified … AT & T bore the burden of proof to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the award was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. § 120.57(3)(f), Fla. Stat. (2015).

Roth v. Roth

973 So. 2d 580 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jan 9, 2008

Section 61.075(3), Florida Statutes (2006), requires the trial court to make written findings clearly identifying the marital and nonmarital assets and liabilities and clearly identifying which spouse is responsible for which … The parties also did not dispute that the residence qualified as the Husband's homestead.

Howell & O'Neal v. UNEMPLOYMENT APP. COM'N

934 So. 2d 570 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jul 11, 2006

"Good cause" in this context is "one which would reasonably impel the average able-bodied qualified worker to give up his or her employment." Moore v. Fla. … This Court may overturn a legal conclusion of the Commission if it is clearly erroneous and, in reviewing the Commission's substituted conclusion, must assure that the correct rules of law were applied. See id.

City of Key West v. Key West Golf Club Homeowners' Assoc. Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jan 26, 2017

In 2001, the City established a stormwater utility. Key West, Fla., Code of Ordinances § 74-363. … All agree that the landholders did not qualify for any exemptions or reductions.

Williams v. State

744 So. 2d 1103 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Oct 6, 1999

When, as in this case, it clearly appears that the defendant's substantial rights were not affected, it is our duty to affirm. We do. Affirmed. SHEVIN, J., concurs. COPE, J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part). … The primary purpose of voir dire is to determine whether the juror is qualified and will be fair and impartial, free from all bias, prejudice or interest in the cause being tried. Ritter v.

Grover v. Brumell Investigations, Inc.

915 So. 2d 750 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Dec 9, 2005

Grover applied for and received an initial determination that he was discharged for reasons other than misconduct and was qualified for benefits. … The record clearly demonstrates that this was the very issue under consideration by the Division from the beginning of the claims pro *754 cess.

State v. Stephens

586 So. 2d 1073 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Oct 17, 1991

Under both, intent to steal the car itself should qualify as "an offense" or "a felony or theft." … The evidence at trial established that Stephens and an accomplice broke into Robert Wallace's Pontiac in Daytona Beach.

Baby Eaw v. Jsw

647 So. 2d 918 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Nov 30, 1994

of those established rights are sought. … Thus, I conclude in this case, because we are dealing with an inchoate relationship, the pertinent inquiry is whether the evidence clearly and convincingly established that the biological father's efforts were marginal and

State v. M.R.

100 So. 3d 272 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Nov 14, 2012

No evidence was introduced to establish how much time passed between the first and second statements made by M.R. … Mesa sought to suppress this second statement and this Court affirmed the lower court’s denial of the motion: [T]he defendant clearly initiated the conversation ] of which he complains.

Jersey Palm-Gross, Inc. v. Paper

639 So. 2d 664 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jul 6, 1994

The four requirements necessary to establish a usurious transaction are: 1. A loan, either express or implied. 2. An understanding that the money must be repaid. 3. … They do not seem to consider whether if usury can be purged ex post facto, as the statute clearly allows, it can also be avoided anticipatorily, which the statute does not clearly prohibit.

NORTH BROWARD HOSPITAL DISTRICT d/b/a BROWARD HEALTH CORAL SPRINGS v. MICHAEL SLUSHER

District Court of Appeal of Florida · Aug 21, 2019

as testified to by a qualified medical expert.” … Serratore, 869 So. 2d 729, 731 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (“There is clearly no professional standard of care involved in attempting to kick a footrest of the reclining chair to return it to its upright position.”).

State v. Yee

177 So. 3d 72 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Oct 14, 2015

The trial court determined that the State failed to establish a reasonable basis to believe a burglary was in progress or had even occurred, and that the State further failed to establish the existence of exigent circumstances … This is simply too substantial an invasion to allow without a warrant, at least in the absence of exigent circumstances, even when it is accomplished under statutory authority and when probable cause is clearly

WINNIEFRED RAMSAY vs SOUTH LAKE HOSPITAL, KERRY L. NEALL, M.D., AND HOLLY B. SAUNDERS, M.D.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · Feb 17, 2023

expiration of a statute of limitations should be granted only in those circumstances where the facts constituting the defense affirmatively appear on the face of the complaint and its attachments 2 so as to conclusively establish … Cape Canaveral Hosp., Inc., 898 So. 2d 973, 974 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (affirming the dismissal of a medical malpractice action with prejudice when the complaint was clearly barred by the statute of repose); Royle v.

Charron v. Birge

37 So. 3d 292 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Apr 9, 2010

The presumption clearly does not apply where a passenger of the following vehicle sues the lead driver for his negligence. 5 The issue in this case is whether Birge was negligent as the forward driver, not whether Smith’s … The notion that the lead driver is immune from any liability because the collision happened to occur at a time and place where the following driver should have anticipated his stop makes no sense.

San Martin v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.

983 So. 2d 620 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Apr 23, 2008

Hampton, 446 U.S. 754 ,] 757, 100 S.Ct. 1987 [, 1989, 64 L.Ed.2d 670 (1980)] ("[I]t seems clearly to have been the intent of Congress to permit . . . an interlocutory award only to a party who has established his entitlement … On the other hand, it is apparently not necessary under Buckhannon that a defendant admit liability in a consent decree to qualify a plaintiff in his quest for a fee. Id. at 604 , 121 S.Ct. 1835 .

Coral Gables v. STATHERS MEMORIAL LODGE 7

976 So. 2d 57 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Feb 6, 2008

The Union suggests the Commission's "special expertise in addressing labor issues," and that it has been found to be "uniquely qualified to interpret and apply the policies enunciated in chapter 447[,]" see Cagle v. St. … First, the "unambiguous statement" exception articulated in City of Orlando, see City of Orlando, 13 FPER ¶ 18218 at 517, is directly contrary to established law.

State v. Rife

733 So. 2d 541 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · May 28, 1999

Clearly, a factor that is no defense to conviction of a crime can be a factor warranting downward departure. … As the high court has made clear, however, our legislature has established an overarching statutory policy when it comes to sex acts involving children.

Markus v. State

160 So. 3d 488 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Feb 27, 2015

This Court has recognized that “[war-rantless searches or arrests conducted in a constitutionally protected area ... are per se unreasonable unless they fall within one of the five established exceptions to the search warrant … Although the majority in Gasset did not use the phrase “exigent circumstance,” the high-speed chase on the public roadways clearly presented a danger to the public, the defendant, and police officers, thus qualifying for

Haile v. State

672 So. 2d 555 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Mar 20, 1996

The court stated: We qualified those factors by stating that they "will tend to show that the state's reasons are not actually supported by the record or are an impermissible pretext." … That factor clearly does not apply in this case.

Challancin v. Florida Land & Water Adjudicatory Commission

12 Fla. L. Weekly 2179 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Sep 9, 1987

“The State of Florida has a clearly stated policy of restoring and protecting Lake Okeechobee. … establishes.