IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Case No. SC Fifth DCA Case No. 5D10-19, Lake County
|
|
- Chad Morrison
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Case No. SC Fifth DCA Case No. 5D10-19, Lake County Upon Petition for Discretionary Review Of A Decision of the Fifth District Court of Appeal CARDIOVASCULAR ASSOCIATES OF LAKE COUNTY, P.A. Petitioner, v. ANGELA SZYMANSKI, DWAYNE E. SZYMANSKI, her husband, individually and as Parents and Natural Guardians of ALYSSA K. SZYMANSKI, a minor, and JOSIAH R. SZYMANSKI, a minor Respondents PETITIONER, CARDIOVASCULAR ASSOCIATES OF LAKE COUNTY, P.A. S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION RISSMAN, BARRETT, HURT, DONAHUE & McLAIN, P.A. JENNINGS L. HURT III, ESQ. HENRY W. JEWETT, II, ESQ. CHRISTINE V. ZHAROVA, ESQ. 201 E. Pine Street, 15th Floor Post Office Box 4940 Orlando, Florida (407) Counsel for Petitioner
2 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ii STATEMENT OF THE FACTS SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT STANDARD OF REVIEW ARGUMENT I. THIS COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO REVIEW 5TH DCA S DECISION IN SZYMANSKI BECAUSE IT EXPRESSLY AND DIRECTLY CONFLICTS WITH A DECISION OF THE 3D DCA ON THE SAME POINT OF LAW CONCLUSION CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE CERTIFICATE OF TYPEFACE COMPLIANCE INDEX TO APPENDIX i
3 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Page(s) Szymanski v. Cardiovascular Associates of Lake County, P.A. 36 Fla. L. Weekly D694 (Fla. 5th DCA April 1, 2011) Gonzalez v. Martinez 897 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) Sun Ins. Co. v. Boyd 105 So. 2d 574, 575 (Fla. 1958) ii
4 STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS Petitioner, CARDIOVASCULAR ASSOCIATES OF LAKE COUNTY, P.A. (hereinafter referred to as CARDIOVASCULAR ASSOCIATES ), pursuant to Fla. R. App. Pro , seeks discretionary review by the Florida Supreme Court of the 5th DCA s decision in Szymanski v. Cardiovascular Associates of Lake County, P.A., 36 Fla. L. Weekly D694 (Fla. 5th DCA April 1, 2011). [A 1]. CARDIOVASCULAR ASSOCIATES respectfully submits that the 5th DCA s ruling is in express and direct conflict with the 3d DCA s decision in Gonzalez v. Martinez, 897 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005). Respondents, ANGELA SZYMANSKI, DWAYNE E. SZYMANSKI, her husband, individually and as Parents and Natural Guardians of ALYSSA K. SZYMANSKI, a minor, and JOSIAH R. SZYMANSKI, a minor, Plaintiffs below, ( SZYMANSKI ), appealed to the 5th DCA a jury verdict and final judgment in favor of CARDIOVASCULAR ASSOCIATES and the trial court s denial of SZYMANSKI s Motion for New Trial. See Szymanski v. Cardiovascular Associates of Lake County, P.A., 36 Fla. L. Weekly D694 (Fla. 5th DCA April 1, 2011). On appeal to the 5th DCA, SZYMANSKI argued that the trial court had erred by not allowing them to use their remaining peremptory challenges to backstrike into the main panel after the original six jurors were selected. [A 1 at D694]. 1
5 In its decision, the 5th DCA reversed the defense judgment, ruling that the trial court had improperly impaired SZYMANSKI s right to backstrike. Id. at D696. The 5th DCA further found that SZYMANSKI had preserved this issue for appeal by generally objecting to the panel as a whole after the two alternate jurors were selected. Id. However, SZYMANSKI had not specifically identified by name the juror(s) on the main panel upon whom they would have exercised their remaining peremptory challenges. Id. CARDIOVASCULAR ASSOCIATES argued before the 5th DCA that SZYMANSKI had failed to preserve the backstriking issue for appeal because SZYMANSKI had not specifically identified by name the juror(s) on the main panel they would have stricken. Id. CARDIOVASCULAR ASSOCIATES cited several cases, including Gonzalez v. Martinez, 897 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) in support of its argument. In Gonzalez, the 3d DCA held that if a party believes its right to backstrike jurors has been improperly impaired, the only way the issue is properly preserved for appeal is for that party to clearly identify the juror or jurors it would have backstricken had backstriking been permitted by the lower court. Gonzalez, 897 So. 2d at 528. Notably, the trial court in Gonzalez, similar to the trial court in Szymanski, had employed a procedure which ultimately had impaired the complaining party s right to backstrike. Id. However, the 3d DCA refused to rule that an impairment of a 2
6 party s right to backstrike is per se reversible error. Id. Instead, the 3d DCA held that the party must properly preserve the issue for appeal by specifically identifying the particular juror that the party would have backstricken had it been permitted to do so. Id. In Szymanski, the 5th DCA ruled that Gonzalez did not apply because the lower court had adopted a procedure that deprived... [SZYMANSKI] of a valuable right by offering them only two choices, neither of which was proper. [A 1 at D697]. In Szymanski, the 5th DCA stated that Gonzalez had no application to the case, although it did not set forth why Gonzalez was not applicable. Id. On June 3, 2011, the 5th DCA issued its denial of Petitioner s Motion for Rehearing, Re-Hearing En Banc, Clarification and Certification. This Petition seeking this Court s discretionary review based on direct and express conflict with the 3d DCA s decision in Gonzalez has been timely filed. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT The Court has jurisdiction pursuant to Fla. R. App. Pro to review the 5th DCA s decision in Szymanski because it expressly and directly conflicts with the 3d DCA s decision in Gonzalez on the same issue of law. The issue is whether a party has failed to properly preserve for appellate review an alleged 3
7 impairment of the party s right to backstrike when the party does not specifically identify by name the juror or jurors who the party would have backstricken had it been allowed to do so. The 3d DCA held in Gonzalez that to preserve the backstriking issue for appeal, the party must timely object and clearly and positively identify the juror or jurors the party would have backstricken had the trial court permitted backstriking. Gonzalez, 897 So. 2d at The 3d DCA in Gonzalez very clearly ruled that the party seeking appellate review must have clearly and specifically identified the particular juror who the party would have stricken in the trial court record. Id. at 528. A vague statement to the court made for the record and couched in probabilities does not properly preserve this issue for appeal. Id. at 527. The 5th DCA s decision in Szymankski expressly and directly conflicts with the decision of the 3d DCA in Gonzalez on the issue of preserving this backstriking issue for appeal. In Szymanski, the 5th DCA has unequivocally ruled the party is not required to clearly identify the specific juror or jurors the party would have backstricken to preserve the issue for appeal. Obviously, this is an issue of great importance to the trial courts of this State. A party s right to backstrike is clear and well established. However, a mere technical impairment of a party s right to backstrike should not be 4
8 reversible error per se and should not result in the reversal of otherwise properly obtained verdicts and judgments. Parties should be required to show on appeal how they were actually harmed by the technical impairment. This requires the party to specifically identify the juror or jurors who would have been backstricken. At this time, the 3d DCA and the 5th DCA are in conflict on this very important issue. STANDARD OF REVIEW The Florida Supreme Court s decisions on discretionary jurisdiction are a matter of de novo review. Sun Ins. Co. v. Boyd, 105 So. 2d 574, 575 (Fla. 1958). ARGUMENT I. THIS COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO REVIEW 5TH DCA S DECISION IN SZYMANSKI BECAUSE IT EXPRESSLY AND DIRECTLY CONFLICTS WITH A DECISION OF THE 3D DCA ON THE SAME POINT OF LAW. The specific issue of law for which there is an express and direct conflict between the 5th DCA in Szymanski and the 3d DCA in Gonzalez is how the issue of an alleged impairment of a party s right to backstrike is properly preserved for appeal. In Gonzalez, the 3d DCA held that the complaining party must clearly and specifically identify the particular juror or jurors the party would have backstricken had it been allowed to do so. Gonzalez, 897 So. 2d at 528. On the other hand, in Szymanski, the 5th DCA held that a general objection to the panel is sufficient and that the party 5
9 does not have to specifically identify the juror or jurors it would have backstricken. [A 1 at D697]. Thus, pursuant to Fla. R. App. Pro , this Court has jurisdiction to review the 5th DCA s decision in Szymanski on this very important issue. In Gonzalez, the 3d DCA ruled that plaintiffs had not properly preserved their argument that their right to backstrike had been impaired by the trial court. Gonzalez, 897 So. 2d at 528. Further, the 3d DCA declined the plaintiffs invitation to create a per se reversible error absent the proper preservation of the backstriking issue. Id. According to the 3d DCA s opinion, in Gonzalez six jurors had been selected and the court was ready to proceed with choosing alternate jurors. Id. At 527. At that point, before the jury was sworn, defense counsel sought to backstrike one of the six prospective jurors. Id. The trial court refused to allow the defense to backstrike into the panel and accused defense counsel of playing games. Id. Plaintiffs counsel also complained that the defense had not specified which juror it would have backstricken. Id. In response, the defense proffered the identity of the juror it would have stricken. Id. In response, plaintiffs counsel was equivocal as to whom he would have backstricken had the defense stricken the juror it identified. Id. Plaintiffs 6
10 counsel essentially stated that he might have exercised a strike on the first six jurors, but I might not have. Id. Plaintiffs raised the backstriking issue on appeal, but the 3d DCA ruled that it had not been properly preserved for appellate review. Id. at The 3d DCA acknowledged that parties have the right to challenge any juror, either peremptorily or for cause, before a jury is sworn. Id. However, to preserve the issue for appellate review, any objections to the voir dire process must be raised and renewed before the jury is sworn and the specific juror who the party would have backstricken must be identified. Id. In rejecting plaintiffs argument, the 3d DCA characterized plaintiffs as attempting to piggyback on the defense s attempt to backstrike a particular juror, without plaintiffs specifically identifying who they would have stricken. Id. The 3d DCA did not find the piggyback attempt to be sufficient to preserve the backstriking issue for appeal and declined plaintiffs invitation to create a per se reversible error under the circumstances. Id. at 528. Thus, in Gonzalez, the 3d DCA ruled that not only were plaintiffs required to renew their objection on the backstriking issue before the jury was sworn, but they were also required to identify the particular juror they would have backstricken had they been given the opportunity to do so. Id. 7
11 The 5th DCA s decision in Szymanski expressly and directly conflicts with the 3d DCA s decision in Gonzalez on the exact same issue. As set forth in the 5th DCA s opinion, CARDIOVASCULAR ASSOCIATES argued on appeal that SZYMANSKI had not properly preserved the backstriking issue for appeal, relying on the 3d DCA s decision in Gonzalez. [A 1 at D697]. The 5th DCA stated that Gonzalez had no application to a case like Szymanski but it did not describe how Gonzalez was not applicable. Id. The 5th DCA ultimately concluded that SZYMANSKI was not required to specifically identify the juror(s) they would have backstricken and that the issue was properly preserved by SZYMANSKI s general objection to the process used to select the entire panel. Id. It appears that the 5th DCA s rationale for ruling that Gonzalez was not applicable was its conclusion that the Szymanski trial court had adopted a procedure that deprived... [SZYMANSKI] of a valuable right by offering them only two choices, neither one of which was proper. Id. However, the procedure adopted by the trial court in Gonzalez was no different than the procedure adopted by the trial court in Szymanski. The trial court in Gonzalez clearly did not offer either party any acceptable or proper choice when it prohibited backstriking into the main panel. Despite the trial court s implementation of this improper procedure, the 3d DCA in Gonzalez 8
12 specifically held that the backstriking issue must be preserved for appeal by a timely objection and by clear and positive identification of the juror or jurors the party would have stricken had the backstriking been permitted. Gonzalez, 897 So. 2d at This is an issue of great importance to the trial courts of this State. As seen in the Gonzalez decision, the mere technical impairment of a party s right to backstrike should not be reversible error per se, and it should not result in reversal of an otherwise properly obtained verdict and judgment. A party should be required to specifically identify the juror or jurors who they would have backstricken to demonstrate on appeal how the party was actually harmed by the technical impairment of the right to backstrike. A ruling on this issue by this Court is necessary because, at this time, the 3d DCA and 5th DCA are in express and direct conflict on this very important issue. CONCLUSION This Court has jurisdiction to review Szymanski because of the express and direct conflict with Gonzalez. This Court should exercise its jurisdiction to resolve the conflict and determine the requirements that must be met to preserve the backstriking issue for appeal. 9
13 Respectfully submitted this _24th day of June, RISSMAN, BARRETT, HURT, DONAHUE & McLAIN, P.A. /s/ Jennings L. Hurt III JENNINGS L. HURT III, ESQ. Florida Bar No.: HENRY W. JEWETT, II, ESQ. Florida Bar No.: CHRISTINE V. ZHAROVA, ESQ. Florida Bar No.: Rissman, Barrett, Hurt, Donahue & McLain, P.A. Post Office Box 4940 Orlando, Florida (407) Attorneys for Appellee/Petitioner, CARDIOVASCULAR ASSOCIATES OF LAKE COUNTY, P.A. 10
14 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and accurate copy of the foregoing, with its appendix, was furnished to counsel of record listed below, by United States mail this 24th day of June, /s/ Jennings L. Hurt III JENNINGS L. HURT III, ESQ. Florida Bar No.: HENRY W. JEWETT, II, ESQ. Florida Bar No.: CHRISTINE V. ZHAROVA, ESQ. Florida Bar No.: Rissman, Barrett, Hurt, Donahue & McLain, P.A. Post Office Box 4940 Orlando, Florida (407) Attorneys for Appellee/Petitioner, CARDIOVASCULAR ASSOCIATES OF LAKE COUNTY, P.A. Counsel for Respondent: Dock A. Blanchard, Esquire P.O. Box 1869 Ocala, FL James W. Clark, Esquire 3407 W. Kennedy Blvd. Tampa, Fl
15 CERTIFICATE OF TYPEFACE COMPLIANCE I HEREBY CERTIFY that this Brief was prepared using Courier New 12-point type, a font that is proportionately spaced and in compliance with Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.100(1). /s/ Jennings L. Hurt III JENNINGS L. HURT III, ESQ. Florida Bar No.: HENRY W. JEWETT, II, ESQ. Florida Bar No.: CHRISTINE V. ZHAROVA, ESQ. Florida Bar No.: Rissman, Barrett, Hurt, Donahue & McLain, P.A. Post Office Box 4940 Orlando, Florida (407) Attorneys for Appellee/Petitioner, CARDIOVASCULAR ASSOCIATES OF LAKE COUNTY, P.A. 12
16 INDEX TO APPENDIX Exhibit A Szymanski v. Cardiovascular Associates of Lake County, P.A., 36 Fla. L. Weekly D694 (Fla. 5th DCA April 1, 2011), together with the June 3, 2011 Order of the Court Denying Motion for Rehearing, Rehearing En Banc, Clarification and Certification 13
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC THIRD DISTRICT CASE NO. 3D COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH CENTER, INC., a/a/o ERLA TELUSNOR,
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC11-726 THIRD DISTRICT CASE NO. 3D09-3370 COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH CENTER, INC., a/a/o ERLA TELUSNOR, Petitioner, vs. UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, A Florida
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. L.T. CASE NO.: 2D v. L.T. CASE NO.: 2D THE HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Connecticut corporation,
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, a Michigan Corporation, Petitioner, CASE NO.: SC04-1977 L.T. CASE NO.: 2D03-2188 v. L.T. CASE NO.: 2D03-3182 THE HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY,
More informationCASE NO. SC L.T. CASE NO. 1D JAMON A. JOHNSON and CHAKA JOHNSON, Petitioners, UNIVERSAL PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,
Electronically Filed 09/09/2013 11:18:02 AM ET RECEIVED, 9/9/2013 11:18:39, Thomas D. Hall, Clerk, Supreme Court 122373 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC13-1427 L.T. CASE NO. 1D12-0891 JAMON
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NUMBER SC
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NUMBER SC04-1690 4 TH DCA CASE NUMBER: 4D03-2921 HYUNDAI MOTOR COMPANY and HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA CORPORATION, vs. Defendants/Petitioners, ANTHONY J. FERAYORNI, as Personal
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Petitioner, L.T. Nos.: 3D PETITIONER S JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA MIGUEL A. FONSECA, v. Petitioner, Case No.: SC09-732 L.T. Nos.: 3D08-1465 06-18955 06-10636 MERCURY INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA, Respondent. / PETITIONER S JURISDICTIONAL
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA. Petitioner, S.C. Case No.: SC DCA Case No.: 5D v. L.T. Case No.
Filing # 12738024 Electronically Filed 04/21/2014 04:09:09 PM RECEIVED, 4/21/2014 16:13:38, John A. Tomasino, Clerk, Supreme Court STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY, IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
More informationAppellant, Lower Court Case No.: CC O
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTO- MOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, CASE NO.: CVA1-06 - 19 vs. CARRIE CLARK, Appellant, Lower Court Case
More informationSupreme Court of Florida
Supreme Court of Florida CASE NO. BASIK EXPORTS & IMPORTS, INC., Petitioner, v. PREFERRED NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent. ON PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA STATE OF FLORIDA, : SUPREME COURT NO.: SC06-2428 : Petitioner, : FLA. 2d DCA v. : CASE NO.: 2D05-1780 : MELVIN STACY JENKINS, : HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY CIR. CT. : CASE NO.:
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA. CASE NO: SC v. THIRD DCA CASE NO.: 3D Lower Tribunal No.:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA RICHARD GRAY, Plaintiff/Petitioner, CASE NO: SC04-1579 v. THIRD DCA CASE NO.: 3D03-1587 Lower Tribunal No.: 98-27005 DANIEL CASES, Defendant/Respondent. PETITIONER
More informationSUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. v. Case No. SC DCA Case No. 2D WILMA SMITH, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA FOREMOST INSURANCE COMPANY and AMERICAN FEDERATION INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioners, v. Case No. SC04-2003 DCA Case No. 2D03-286 WILMA SMITH, individually, and on behalf of all others
More informationIn this PIP case, State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Co. (State Farm), the Defendant below,
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. WORLD HEALTH WELLNESS, INC. a/a/o Glenda Pinero, Appellee.
More informationFINAL ORDER AFFIRMING TRIAL COURT. the trial court s Final Judgment entered July 16, 2014, in favor of Appellee, Emergency
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, CASE NO.: 2014-CV-000054-A-O Lower Case No.: 2011-SC-008737-O Appellant, v.
More informationIn the Supreme Court of Florida
In the Supreme Court of Florida CASE NO.: SC11-258 STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. LLOYD BEVERLY and EDITH BEVERLY, Respondents. ON DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE SECOND DISTRICT COURT
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Case No. DCA Case No. 2D L.T. Case No CA
William O. Murtagh, M.D., Plaintiff/Appellant, vs. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Case No. DCA Case No. 2D-10-246 L.T. Case No. 09-3769-CA Lynn Hurley, Defendant/Appellee. / PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER/APPELLANT,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Case No. SC L.T. No. 3D A.M. BEST ROOFING, INC., Petitioner, RICHARD KAYFETZ, Respondent.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Case No. SC03-131 L.T. No. 3D00-3278 A.M. BEST ROOFING, INC., Petitioner, v. RICHARD KAYFETZ, Respondent. ON NOTICE TO INVOKE DISCRETIONARY JURISDICTION TO REVIEW DECISION
More informationRESPONDENT CDC BUILDERS, INC. S RESPONSE TO PETITIONERS RIVIERA BILTMORE, LLC AND RIVIERA SEVILLA LLC S JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF
2070625 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA RIVIERA ALMERIA, LLC, RIVIERA BILTMORE, LLC, RIVIERA SEVILLA, LLC, Petitioner(s) CASE NO.: SC11-503 LOWER TRIBUNAL CASE NOS: 3D10-1197, 08-2763CA10 vs. CDC BUILDERS,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA BRUCE BERNSTEIN, Petitioner, v. CASE NO. SC05-1586 HARVEY GOLDMAN, Respondent. / RESPONDENT S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION On Petition To Invoke Discretionary Review Of A Decision
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED PAUL WOODSON, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D13-3311
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT RECEIVED, 6/14/2017 4:56 PM, Joanne P. Simmons, Fifth District Court of Appeal MICHAEL CONNOLLY, Plaintiff/Appellant, Case No.: 5D17-1172
More informationIn the Supreme Court of Florida
In the Supreme Court of Florida CASE NO.: SC10-116 STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. GILDA MENENDEZ, FABIOLA G. LLANES, FABIOLA P. LLANES and ROGER LLANES, Respondents. DISCRETIONARY
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA JOHN D. DUDLEY, Petitioner, CASE NO.: SC 07-1747 vs. DCA CASE NO.: 5D06-3821 ELLEN F. SCHMIDT, Respondent. / PETITIONER S AMENDED JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF Richard J. D
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT FOR THE STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC
IN THE SUPREME COURT FOR THE STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC05-2231 RENEE HELD, Petitioner, L. T. CASE NO. 4D04-1432 and KENNETH HELD Respondent. AMENDED JURISDICTIONAL ANSWER BRIEF OF RESPONDENT TERRENCE
More informationSUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC U.S. SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, vs. CARMEN MARIA CONTRERAS, ETC., Respondent.
SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC06-1259 U.S. SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, vs. CARMEN MARIA CONTRERAS, ETC., Respondent. Express & Direct Conflict Jurisdiction Fourth District Court of Appeal
More informationSUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA
SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA NATIONWIDE MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE : COMPANY, : : Petitioner, : CASE NO.: SC : v. : : HOWARD J. BEVILLE, JR., et al., : : Respondent. : : : ON DISCRETIONARY
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA PETITIONER S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION
HERBERT KINDL, Petitioner, IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Case No. v. 5 th DCA CASE NO. 5D10-1722 UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, Respondent. / PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW OF A DECISION
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC THIRD DISTRICT CASE NO. 3D BRASS & SINGER, D.C., P.A., A/A/O MILDRED SOLAGES, Petitioner,
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC06-283 THIRD DISTRICT CASE NO. 3D05-951 BRASS & SINGER, D.C., P.A., A/A/O MILDRED SOLAGES, Petitioner, vs. UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, A Florida corporation,
More informationIN THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT Case No.: SC Petitioner, BRENDA W. NIX,
----------------------------------------------- -------- IN THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT Case No.: SC06-1326 ----------------------------------------------- -------- RICHARD A. NIX, Petitioner, v. BRENDA
More informationBEFORE THE FLORIDA JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS COMMISSION STATE OF FLORIDA INQUIRY CONCERNING A JUDGE
Filing # 29552579 E-Filed 07/13/2015 11:29:39 AM BEFORE THE FLORIDA JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS COMMISSION STATE OF FLORIDA INQUIRY CONCERNING A JUDGE SC13-1333 LAURA M. WATSON, NO. 12-613 / RECEIVED, 07/13/2015
More informationIN THE FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
IN THE FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA Security First Insurance Company, Case No. 1D14-1864 Lower Case No. 149960-14 Appellant, v. State of Florida, Office of Insurance Regulation,
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Appellant Case No.: Appeal No: INITIAL BRIEF ON THE MERITS
THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA RUBEN FLORES Vs. Appellant Case No.: 00-2281 Appeal No: 98-04115 ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY Appellee / INITIAL BRIEF ON THE MERITS On Petition to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction
More informationSTAND-UP MRI OF ORLANDO, CASE NO.: CVA
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA STAND-UP MRI OF ORLANDO, CASE NO.: CVA1 06-58 a/a/o Eusebio Isaac, LOWER COURT CASE NO.: 2005-SC-4899-O Appellant,
More informationAppellant, CASE NO.: CVA v. Lower Court Case No.: 2006-SC-922 FINAL ORDER AFFIRMING TRIAL COURT
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA GLORIA METCALF, Appellant, CASE NO.: CVA1 07-10 v. Lower Court Case No.: 2006-SC-922 CRYSTAL ORTIZ, Appellee. / Appeal
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA Orlando Orthopaedic Center a/a/o Jennifer Chapman, Appellant, CASE NO.: 2015-CV-64-A-O Lower Court Case No.: 2014-SC-2566-O
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: ARNALDO VELEZ, an individual, TAYLOR, BRION, BUKER & GREENE, a general partnership, vs. Petitioners, BIRD LAKES DEVELOPMENT CORP., a Panamanian corporation, Respondent.
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC THIRD DISTRICT CASE NO. 3D
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC11-726 THIRD DISTRICT CASE NO. 3D09-3370 COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH CENTER, INC. (a/a/o Erla Telusnor), vs. Petitioner, UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent.
More informationCASE NO. 1D Roy W. Jordan, Jr., of Roy W. Jordan, Jr., P.A., West Palm Beach, for Appellant.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA SUSAN GENA, v. Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE NO. 1D11-1783
More informationThird District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed October 13, 2016. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D14-2986 Lower Tribunal No. 99-993 Mario Gonzalez,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Case No. SC On Petition for Discretionary Review Of a Decision of The First District Court of Appeal
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Case No. SC04-957 On Petition for Discretionary Review Of a Decision of The First District Court of Appeal RISCORP INSURANCE COMPANY, RISCORP PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Case No. 1D
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Case No. 1D07-6027 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, AS RECEIVER FOR AMERICAN SUPERIOR INSURANCE COMPANY, INSOLVENT, vs. Petitioner, IMAGINE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
More informationRUSSELL L. HALL, CASE NO.: CVA LOWER COURT CASE NO.: CEB
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA RUSSELL L. HALL, CASE NO.: CVA1 07-07 LOWER COURT CASE NO.: CEB 2007-614622 v. Appellant, ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA, Appellee.
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. v. CASE NO. SC RESPONDENT S RESPONSE BRIEF ON JURISDICTION
KENNETH R. PFRENGLE, Petitioner, IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA v. CASE NO. SC08-717 PAULA D. PFRENGLE, n/k/a PAULA D. KAY, Respondent. / RESPONDENT S RESPONSE BRIEF ON JURISDICTION JOAN LoBIANCO WALKER,
More informationOF FLORIDA. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Barbara S. Levenson, Judge.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DISPOSED OF. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT JANUARY TERM, A.D. 2005 STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC SERVICE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, vs. OFFICE OF INSURANCE REGULATION AND
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC11-299 SERVICE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, vs. OFFICE OF INSURANCE REGULATION AND THE FINANCIAL SERVICES COMMISSION, Appellees. BRIEF ON JURISDICTION OF APPELLEES
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
Electronically Filed 07/24/2013 10:41:59 AM ET RECEIVED, 7/24/2013 11:38:37, Thomas D. Hall, Clerk, Supreme Court JAMON A. JOHNSON and CHAKA JOHNSON, IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Petitioners, v. L.
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. v. Case No.: SC ANSWER BRIEF ON JURISDICTION OF RESPONDENTS BARBARA REIS AND JOSEPH REIS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign corporation, Petitioner, v. Case No.: SC06-962 BARBARA REIS and JOSEPH REIS, Respondents. / ANSWER BRIEF ON JURISDICTION
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ST LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. APPELLATE DIVISION
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ST LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. APPELLATE DIVISION Circuit Case No. 16-AP-20 Lower Tribunal No. 15-SC-1894 LILIANA HERNANDEZ, Appellant, Not
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 94,135 (CI 98-CI 1137)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 94,135 (CI 98-CI 1137) STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellant, vs. VALIDATION OF NOT EXCEEDING $35,000,000 OSCEOLA COUNTY, OSCEOLA COUNTY, FLORIDA, a FLORIDA TOURIST DEVELOPMENT
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC DISTRICT COURT CASE NO. 4D
Filing # 24507206 E-Filed 03/05/2015 09:53:26 AM IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, CASE NO. SC15-288 DISTRICT COURT CASE NO. 4D13-0185 RECEIVED,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. THE FLORIDA BAR, : CASE NO: SC : LOWER TRIBUNAL: ,017 (02) Complainant-Appellee: FILING DATE: 8/3/2001
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA THE FLORIDA BAR, : CASE NO: SC01-1696 : LOWER TRIBUNAL: 2002-00,017 (02) Complainant-Appellee: FILING DATE: 8/3/2001 :v. : : JOSE L. DELCASTILLO : SALAMANCA : Respondent-Appellant:
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC08-1. MARK FREEMAN and RAPHAEL RODRIGUEZ. Petitioners, vs. BLOSSOM COHEN and ABRAHAM COHEN, Respondents
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC08-1 MARK FREEMAN and RAPHAEL RODRIGUEZ Petitioners, vs. BLOSSOM COHEN and ABRAHAM COHEN, Respondents RESPONDENTS ANSWER BRIEF ON JURISDICTION ALVIN N. WEINSTEIN
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA STATE OF FLORIDA PETITIONERS AMENDED JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF 1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA STATE OF FLORIDA RIVIERA ALMERIA RIVERIA BILTMORE, LLC, and RIVIERA SEVILLA, LLC, CASE NO.: SC 11-503 DCA CASE NO: 3D10-1197 L.T. Case No.: 08-2763 CA 40 v. Petitioners,
More informationBRIEF OF THE ACADEMY OF FLORIDA TRIAL LAWYERS, AMICUS CURIAE, SUPPORTING RESPONDENTS' POSITION
SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, a reciprocal interinsurance exchange, Petitioner, vs. DALE E. JENNINGS, JR., and TAMMY M. JENNINGS, Respondents. CASE NO. 92,776 ON CERTIFIED
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO: DCA CASE NO.: 2D
Electronically Filed 04/18/2013 01:20:31 PM ET RECEIVED, 4/25/2013 15:07:31, Thomas D. Hall, Clerk, Supreme Court IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA HARCO NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, vs. Petitioner, LARRY
More informationRespondents. / ANSWER BRIEF ON THE MERITS OF RESPONDENT, THE OHIO CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
JAMES D. STERLING and CAROLYN STERLING, as Parents and Natural Guardians of JAMES D. STERLING, JR., a minor, and JAMES D. STERLING and CAROLYN STERLING, Individually, vs. Petitioners, STATE OF FLORIDA
More informationSUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC th DCA CASE NO. 4D L.T. CASE NO. CACE (13)
SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC03-1597 4th DCA CASE NO. 4D02-368 L.T. CASE NO. CACE 99-12131 (13) ASAL PRODUCTS, INC., a Florida corporation, vs. Petitioner, OFFICE PAVILION SOUTH FLORIDA, INC., a
More informationALEXANDER HUNTING, CASE NO.: 2011-CV-50
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA ALEXANDER HUNTING, CASE NO.: 2011-CV-50 v. Appellant, ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA Appellee. / Appeal from a decision of
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC RESPONDENTS BRIEF ON JURISDICTION
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO.: SC09-401 CHAD GOFF and CAROL GOFF, Respondents, / RESPONDENTS BRIEF ON JURISDICTION
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Case No. SC08- Lower Tribunal No. 3D BEATRICE PERAZA, Appellant, vs. CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION,
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Case No. SC08- Lower Tribunal No. 3D07-477 BEATRICE PERAZA, Appellant, vs. CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, Appellee. On Review of a Decision of the Third District
More informationIn the Supreme Court of Florida
In the Supreme Court of Florida CASE NO.: SC09-401 STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. CHAD GOFF and CAROL GOFF, Respondents. ON DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF
More informationv. CASE NO.: CVA Lower Court Case No.: 2003-SC-598-O
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA REGIONAL MRI OF ORLANDO, INC., as assignee of Lorraine Gerena, Appellant, v. CASE NO.: CVA1 09-38 Lower Court Case
More information2016 PA Super 262. Appellant No MDA 2015
2016 PA Super 262 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. HENRY L. WILLIAMS, Appellant No. 2078 MDA 2015 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence October 16, 2015 In
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA HERBERT KINDL, PETITIONER, UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, RESPONDENT. CASE NO.: SC11-146
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA HERBERT KINDL, PETITIONER, v. UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, RESPONDENT. CASE NO.: SC11-146 L.T. NO.: 5D10-1722; 09-CA-5209-A5-L ON DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. CASE NO. SC LOWER TRIBUNAL NUMBER 3D Circuit Court Case No
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC08-1922 LOWER TRIBUNAL NUMBER 3D07-299 Circuit Court Case No. 00-19074 AVIOR TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and GEM CITY AVIATION, INC. d/b/a AVTECH EXECUTIVE FLIGHT CENTER,
More informationDISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, Appellant, v. RISBEL MENDOZA and VINCENTE JUBES, Appellees. Nos. 4D16-1302 and 4D17-2286 [July
More informationDISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT July Term 2007
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT July Term 2007 J.P. MORGAN TRUST COMPANY, N.A., and JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., Appellants, v. DANIEL G. SIEGEL, individually, and SIMON
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT SCIOTO COUNTY BRIEF OF APPELLANT C.D.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT SCIOTO COUNTY A.B., Inc., : Case No. Plaintiff-Appellee, : v. : On Appeal from the Scioto County Court of C.D., : Common Pleas, Case No. Defendant-Appellant.
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIFTH DISTRICT OF FLORIDA. v. CASE NO. 5D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIFTH DISTRICT OF FLORIDA BLACKBOX, INC., Appellant, v. CASE NO. 5D00-0000 JAMES L. DOE and MARCIA E. DOE, et al., Appellees. / ON APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH
More informationSUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC Fourth DCA Case No. 4D09-728
SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC11-263 Fourth DCA Case No. 4D09-728 MCLAUGHLIN ENGINEERING COMPANY, a Florida Corporation, JERALD MCLAUGHLIN, individually, and CARL E. ALBREKTSEN, individually, vs.
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL THIRD DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL THIRD DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA RECEIVED, 12/8/2016 1:37 PM, Mary Cay Blanks, Third District Court of Appeal LBMP HOLDINGS, LLC and AJK 21ST STREET, LLC, CASE NO.: 3D16-2433
More informationThird District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed August 02, 2017. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D16-2672 Lower Tribunal No. 12-15813 Dev D. Dabas and
More informationSUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Supreme Court Case No.: District Court Case No.: 3D HACIENDA LOMA LINDA, Petitioner,
SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Supreme Court Case No.: District Court Case No.: 3D05-1331 HACIENDA LOMA LINDA, Petitioner, v. THE SCOTTS COMPANY, SCOTTS-SIERRA HORTICULTURAL PRODUCTS COMPANY, and BOB SANTANA,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT IN AND FOR THE STATE OF FLORIDA
IN THE SUPREME COURT IN AND FOR THE STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: FOURTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL CASE NO.: 4D09-3033 Trial Court No.: 50 2003 GA 000270 XXPP IH (Palm Beach County) IN RE THE GUARDIANSHIP
More informationAMENDED BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF JURISDICTION
KARIM GHANEM, vs. Petitioner, STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. / IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC05-1860 Lower Tribunal No: 4D03-743 AMENDED BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF JURISDICTION [PETITION FOR WRIT
More informationPEGGY WARD CASE NO.: CVA LOWER COURT CASE NO.: 06-CC-3986 Appellant,
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA PEGGY WARD CASE NO.: CVA1 06-46 LOWER COURT CASE NO.: 06-CC-3986 Appellant, v. RAK CHARLES TOWNE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
More informationPROGRESSIVE CONSUMERS INSURANCE CO. CASE NO.: CVA LOWER COURT CASE NO.:
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA PROGRESSIVE CONSUMERS INSURANCE CO. CASE NO.: CVA1 06-56 LOWER COURT CASE NO.: Appellant, 2003-SC-8994 v. JEAN P. FLORESTAL,
More informationSUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA. Petitioner, CASE NO.: SC vs. Lwr Tribunal: 1D
SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA JACQUELINE DUPREY, Petitioner, CASE NO.: SC07-396 vs. Lwr Tribunal: 1D05-3340 LA PETITE ACADEMY and GALLAGHER BASSETT, Respondent. / PETITIONER S INITIAL
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 HALFPENNY MANAGEMENT CO. AND RICHARD CARR, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. JAMES D. SCHNELLER, Appellant No. 2095 EDA 2014
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P Appellant No WDA 2014
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 HELEN LEWANDOWSKI AND ROBERT A. LEWANDOWSKI, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF DECEASED HELEN LEWANDOWSKI, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
More informationThird District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D. 2011
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D. 2011 Opinion filed December 07, 2011. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D11-334 Lower Tribunal No.
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS
COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS RUSSELL TERRY McELVAIN, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee. No. 08-11-00170-CR Appeal from the Criminal District Court Number Two of Tarrant
More informationORAL ARGUMENT HELD APRIL 12, 2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
USCA Case #15-1177 Document #1653244 Filed: 12/28/2016 Page 1 of 5 ORAL ARGUMENT HELD APRIL 12, 2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT PHH CORPORATION, PHH MORTGAGE
More informationNOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT HILDA GIRA, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D11-6465 ) NORMA
More informationNOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES FOR REHEARING AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED
County Civil Court: ATTORNEY S FEES. The trial court correctly found the relevant market required the possibility of a multiplier in order for Appellee to obtain representation in this matter. The trial
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM v. Case No. 5D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2013 EMMETT B. HAGOOD, III, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT. v. Case No. 5D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT INTERIM NON-DISPOSITIVE OPINION NO MANDATE WILL BE ISSUED AT THIS TIME HUGH HICKS, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D17-1282 AMERICAN INTEGRITY
More informationDISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT January Term 2014
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT January Term 2014 ROBERTO SOLANO and MARLENE SOLANO, Appellants, v. STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. No. 4D12-1198 [May 14,
More informationPamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Giselle D. Lylen, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA ERNEST ARCHIE, v. Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE NO. 1D14-5298
More informationRESPONDENT, AEROLEASE OF AMERICA, INC. S RESPONSE TO PETITIONER S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION
A-57305-7 IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA JOHN K. VREELAND, Administrator Ad Litem for the Estate of JOSE MARTINEZ, and the Personal Representative of the Estate of JOSE MARTINEZ, Deceased, CASE
More informationSUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. v. Case No. SC th DCA Case No. 5D
SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA D.M.T., Appellant, v. Case No. SC12-261 5 th DCA Case No. 5D09-3559 T.M.H., Appellee. / APPELLEE S VERIFIED OBJECTION TO APPELLANT S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE INITIAL
More informationFIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA No. 1D17-4545 JASON BRADLEY SIMS, Appellant, v. ROBERT F. BARNARD and JELKS & WHITE, P.A., Appellees. On appeal from the Circuit Court for Bay County. James
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Case No.: SC E. MARIE BOTHE, Petitioner, -vs- PAMELA JEAN HANSEN. Respondent.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Case No.: SC09-901 E. MARIE BOTHE, Petitioner, -vs- PAMELA JEAN HANSEN Respondent. ON PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL, SECOND DISTRICT
More informationCASE NO. 1D Appellant challenges the circuit court s summary denial of his
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA STEPHEN ELLIOT DRAKUS, v. Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE NO.
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC05-856
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC05-856 RICHARD SNELL, Vs. Appellant/Petitioner ALLSTATE INDEMNITY CO., et al. Appellee/Respondent. / PETITIONER S THIRD AMENDED BRIEF ON JURISDICTION BOIES, SCHILLER
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. vs. CASE NO. SC96659 REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLEE/ CROSS APPELLANT
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA ROBERT BEELER P0WER, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, vs. CASE NO. SC96659 STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee/ Cross-Appellant. / REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLEE/ CROSS APPELLANT INTERLOCUTORY
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF FLORIDA
IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF FLORIDA ASSOCIATED UNIFORM RENTAL & LINEN SUPPLY, INC., Petitioner, Case No. SC09-134 3DCA Case No.: 3D05-2130 v. RKR MOTORS, INC., Respondent. On Discretionary Review From
More information2018 PA Super 45. Appeal from the Order entered March 29, 2017 In the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County Civil Division at No: CT
2018 PA Super 45 WILLIAM SMITH SR. AND EVERGREEN MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC. IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. BRIAN HEMPHILL AND COMMERCIAL SNOW + ICE, LLC APPEAL OF BARRY M. ROTHMAN, ESQUIRE No. 1351
More informationNo. 1D On appeal from the Circuit Court for Bradford County. William E. Davis, Judge. November 30, 2018
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA No. 1D16-4184 BOBBY ALLEN BENNETT, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. On appeal from the Circuit Court for Bradford County. William E. Davis, Judge.
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM v. Case No. 5D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM 2001 STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D00-2993 PASHA YENKE, Appellee. / Opinion filed
More informationSUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA
SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA BARRY L. BERGES, Petitioner, CASE NO.: SC01-2846 vs. On Appeal from: District Court of Appeal, INFINITY INSURANCE COMPANY Second District formerly known as
More information