Case law

Bayson v. State

126 So. 3d 1176 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Aug 22, 2012

To show that appellant qualified as an HVFO, the State had to establish that appellant had previously been convicted of one enumerated felony (such as robbery). § 775.084(l)(b)l.c., Fla. Stat. (1991). … The defendant clearly qualifies as a habitual violent felony offender in every sense of the term. Within a span of five years, appellant committed at least four robberies of which he was convicted.

Valdez v. Chief Judge of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida

640 So. 2d 1164 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jul 5, 1994

legitimate purpose and goal of the chief judge in adopting the administrative order, as amended, and the fact that the order was implemented upon the recommendation of the Pretrial Release Review Committee, the order is clearly … Walker, 88 So.2d 312 (Fla.1956). .As identified in Administrative Orders 82-18 and 90-24, pre-bond hearing release to the custody of the Dade County Pretrial Release Program of certain qualified defendants will occur.

Hodge v. State

419 So. 2d 346 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Aug 4, 1982

The testimony concerning Renee was clearly admissible under the line of decisions which has permitted similar fact testimony for the purpose of showing a "pattern of criminality." Jones v. … In the instant case, we need not entirely rest our decision to affirm on the premise that Renee's testimony was admissible to establish a pattern of criminality.

Tony Roberson v. City of Pompano Beach

District Court of Appeal of Florida · Feb 26, 2025

As to the first part of the framework, the parties stipulated that appellant had established a prima facie case. … Clearly, the committee looked to various factors, 4 including who would be a better fit for this customer service position.

COLONIAL PENN v. Magnetic Imaging Systems

694 So. 2d 852 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jun 4, 1997

This requirement is clearly met by the class certified here. … The trial court found that Magnetic and its qualified lawyers would be adequate representatives, and the record clearly supports this finding.

FLA. BD. OF REG. OF DEPT. OF ED. v. Harris

338 So. 2d 215 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jul 13, 1976

A proper opinion in the case hinges upon a correct interpretation of the specific provisions of determinative Rule 7.6, Florida Board of Regents' Operating Manual, the validity of which has been clearly established in Weitzel … (Emphasis added) It is quickly apparent from the plain language of the Rule that a duality of conditions must be met by one qualifying as a Florida student for fee-paying purposes.

City of Daytona Beach v. Baker

98 So. 2d 804 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Dec 10, 1957

Plaintiff’s uncontested proofs conclusively establish that the city leased the auditorium to the Daytona Beach Junior Chamber of Commerce for the time required and the purposes of the pageant. … These facts are clearly distinguishable from the case on appeal in which there is no showing that the landlord retained any control over the leased premises inconsistent with its proprietary rights, none of which were violated

Silvester v. State

794 So. 2d 683 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Sep 5, 2001

This would result in allowing convicted individuals to establish a line of credit for future crimes, giving them a sense of immunity and an incentive to engage in criminal conduct, a result which cannot be condoned. … Giving individuals such an incentive to commit future crimes is clearly against public policy. See Miller v.

McCoy v. State

338 So. 2d 52 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Sep 17, 1976

It further appears that pursuant to the subpoena, the appellant appeared before an assistant state attorney, was placed under oath, given immunity from any crime to which she testified and gave information. … A state attorney's directions to give testimony while under oath in front of police officers is not unlike directions to testify before another court or governmental unit, which a state attorney clearly lacks power to do.

Lewis v. State

636 So. 2d 154 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Apr 27, 1994

In case number 91-1187, the state presented uncontradicted evidence establishing that appellant qualified as an habitual felony offender. … This purpose was clearly accomplished because Massey and his attorney had actual notice in advance of the hearing. It is inconceivable that Massey was prejudiced by not having received the written notice. Id. at 600 .

State v. Tsavaris

382 So. 2d 56 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Mar 6, 1980

The court in that case clearly based its holding on the meaning of the word "interception." … In our view the supreme court held only that Section 914.04 conferred no immunity on Dr. Tsavaris and that the Fifth Amendment did not require that Dr. Tsavaris be held immune from prosecution.

Pratt v. Lavender

319 So. 2d 88 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Sep 26, 1975

Patently the case was not eligible for’ summary judgment on basis of the plaintiff having established the elements of his cause of action. … Clearly he had every right to convey such interest. The trial court supported its entry of a summary judgment on basis of Connelly v. Florida National Bank, Fla.App.2d 1960, 120 So.2d 647 .

Deel Motors, Inc. v. Department of Commerce

252 So. 2d 389 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Sep 21, 1971

to the Administrative Procedure Act for the purpose of deciding whether the Department of Commerce, in the case sub judice, substantially complied with its requirements. *394 Part II of the Administrative Procedure Act clearly … directs that all proceedings conducted by any state agency, board, commission, or department for the purpose of adjudicating any party's legal rights, duties, privileges, or immunities, must be conducted in a quasi-judicial

Jones v. Smith

674 So. 2d 151 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Apr 17, 1996

The facts relied upon by appellant conclusively establish that his complained-of problem was indigestion, not a serious medical problem. … In any event, appellee was entitled to qualified immunity because, based on the allegations in the second amended complaint and the factual support offered for them, her conduct cannot be considered wanton and willful, but

FL ENTER., INC. v. Unemp. Apps. Com'n

515 So. 2d 1340 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Nov 19, 1987

We conclude that the evidence clearly establishes that Jouben was an independent contractor rather than an employee and reverse. Pursuant to an Independent Contractors Agreement with F.L. … Enterprises controlled the final product, which here was a qualified prospect, is erroneous. The evidence clearly shows that the time share resorts controlled this determination.

United States Shoe Corp. v. Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Opticianry

578 So. 2d 376 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Apr 11, 1991

sufficient, according to the order, to “clearly empower Respondent [Board] to adopt the rule which is the subject of this proceeding.” … The proposed amendment goes beyond any authority in the organic statutory law governing the Board’s exercise of power and thus is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority because it clearly enlarges and contravenes

King v. State

557 So. 2d 899 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Mar 1, 1990

(b) The court, in conformity with the procedure established in subsection (3), may sentence the habitual violent felony offender as follows: 1. … Determining who falls within the purview of section 775.084 is clearly established by the statute.

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Comm. v. William Daws, Jr. and Ouida Gershon

District Court of Appeal of Florida · Apr 10, 2018

In the Order on Evidentiary Hearing and Hearing on Summary Judgment Motion, the trial court found that the credible testimony clearly and convincingly established that deer dog hunting days invade and interfere with Appellees … In its Reply Brief, Appellant acknowledges that “courts in Florida have established that sovereign immunity does not bar all inverse condemnation claims and common law nuisance claims” against state agencies, commissions,

Williams v. State

932 So. 2d 1233 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jul 11, 2006

Colleton did not qualify under the rule. The trial judge asked Williams a few questions: The Court: Mr. … Colleton does not technically qualify for this rule. If he does not qualify under this rule, do you still want him to represent you in this case? The Defendant: Yes, sir.

Wilson v. State

857 So. 2d 964 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Oct 24, 2003

The qualifying predicate conviction was not vacated by a Maryland court until December 21, 2000. Therefore, the Maryland court opinion and order are clearly newly discovered facts. … Unless another qualifying predicate offense exists, appellant’s sentence must be vacated.