IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC SERVICE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, vs. OFFICE OF INSURANCE REGULATION AND
|
|
- Betty Cain
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC SERVICE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, vs. OFFICE OF INSURANCE REGULATION AND THE FINANCIAL SERVICES COMMISSION, Appellees. BRIEF ON JURISDICTION OF APPELLEES OFFICE OF INSURANCE REGULATION AND THE FINANCIAL SERVICES COMMISSION Submitted by: Elenita Gomez Florida Bar No.: Legal Services Office Office of Insurance Regulation 612 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida (850) Counsel for Appellees
2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page(s) TABLE OF CONTENTS... ii TABLE OF CITATIONS... iii REFERENCES IN THE BRIEF... v STATEMENT OF THE CASE... 1 STATEMENT OF THE FACTS... 2 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT... 3 ARGUMENT... 6 CONCLUSION CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ii
3 TABLE OF CITATIONS Cases... Page Aravena v. Miami-Dade County, 928 So.2d 1163 (Fla. 2006)... 8 Canal Ins. Co. v. Cont l Cas. Co., 489 So.2d 136, 138 (Fla 2nd DCA 1986)... 8 Christo v. State, Dep t. of Banking and Fin., 649 So.2d 318 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)... 7 Department of Revenue v. Sheraton Bal Harbour Assoc., Ltd., 864 So.2d 454 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)... 8 Hulmes v. Div. of Ret., Dep t. of Admin., 418 So.2d 268 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)... 8 Witmer v. Dep t. of Bus. and Prof. Reg., Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, 662 So.2d 1299 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)... 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Statutes... Page (1), Florida Statutes... 4, (3)(a), Florida Statutes... 3, 4, 6, 8, (6), Florida Statutes... 2, 3, 5, , Florida Statutes , Florida Statutes , Florida Statutes... 2, , Florida Statutes... 2, 8 Rules Page 9.030(2)(A)(iv), Fla. R. App. P (2)(A)(v), Fla. R. App. P.... 6, (4), Florida Administrative Code O , Florida Administrative Code... 2 iii
4 69O (1)(d), Florida Administrative Code...2, 3, 7, 8, 9 69O (7), Florida Administrative Code... 2, 5, 7 69O , Florida Administrative Code... 2 Laws of Florida Page s. 4, ch s. 16, ch iv
5 REFERENCES IN THE BRIEF References to the First District Court of Appeal will be referred to as the DCA or First DCA. References to the Per Curiam Opinion issued by the First District Court of Appeal shall be referred to as Opinion at p.. References to the Administrative Law Judge will be referred to as the ALJ and the Division of Administrative Hearings will be referred to as DOAH. Service Insurance Company will be referred to as Service or Appellant. The Office of Insurance Regulation will be referred to as Office and the Financial Services Commission will be referred to as FSC. Jointly they will be referred to as Appellees. The former Department of Insurance will be referred to as the DOI. v
6 STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS STATEMENT OF THE CASE This action arises as the result of an untimely rule challenge filed by Appellant in this matter regarding Rule 69O (1)(d) 1, F.A.C., and from a Per Curiam Opinion issued by the First District Court of Appeal on November 10, The First DCA s opinion determined that Appellant s rule challenge was not filed during the rule s existence and that the ALJ below should have declined to hear the untimely rule challenge. The Per Curiam Opinion thus reversed the ALJ s Final Order which had found that Rule 69O (1)(d), F.A.C., was an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. Prior to June 2009, when Appellant filed its rule challenge, no challenge had ever been filed to Rule 69O (1)(d), F.A.C. or the predecessor rule. Subsequent to the First DCA s opinion, on November 29, 2010, Appellant filed a Motion for Rehearing and a Motion for Certification. On January 10, 2011, the First DCA issued orders denying the motion for rehearing and denying certification to the Supreme Court. There is absolutely no express or direct conflict 1 Rule 69O (1)(d), F.A.C. is the former Rule (4), F.A.C. It attained its current numbering on January 7, 2003, when the Office of Insurance Regulation was created and the arbitration rules were transferred to the newly formed Office. 1
7 between the First DCA s opinion and the Fourth District Court of Appeal as alleged by Appellant. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS The underlying rule challenge filed in June 2009 was filed subsequent to an arbitration held in February 2008 regarding the disapproval of a rate filing submitted by Appellant and the issuance of an Award in that matter in early June Section (6), F.S., which was effective January 1, 1997, permitted insurers whose rate filings were disapproved to elect either an arbitration proceeding before an arbitration panel or an administrative proceeding before an Administrative Law Judge ( ALJ ). s. 4, ch , Laws of Florida. Arbitration proceedings were to be held pursuant to Sections (6), , , and , F.S., as well as Rules 69O through 69O , F.A.C. The contested portion of that Award states in Paragraph 8: Pursuant to (6)(a), Fla. Stat., and Fla. Admin. Code R. 69O (7), all fees and expenses of this arbitration, including fees and expenses of arbitrators and the administrative fees and charges of the American Arbitration Association, shall be borne by Service. Rule 69O (7), F.A.C., mentioned in the Award was not the subject of the rule challenge below, and indeed has never been challenged. The text of that unchallenged rule reads: The decision or award may not impose on the Office an obligation to pay any monetary amount. The Office 2
8 shall not be liable for any costs, expenses or fees related to or associated with the rate filing arbitration. During the rule challenge before the Division of Administrative Hearings ( DOAH ) the Appellees maintained that the DOAH did not have jurisdiction to hear the rule challenge and that the ALJ exceeded her authority in invalidating Rule 69O (1)(d), F.A.C., the enabling statute, Section (6), F.S., having been repealed on July 1, SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT Section (3)(a), F.S., became law effective October 1, Thus, in 2008 when Appellant initiated its rule challenge, applicable law at the time required that [a] substantially affected person may seek an administrative determination of the invalidity of an existing rule at any time during the existence of the rule. The First DCA upheld the plain meaning of the statute by overturning the ALJ s Final Order and determining that the ALJ did not have jurisdiction to hear the rule challenge when the enabling statute had been repealed in An administrative rule which implements a statute automatically expires upon repeal of such a statute. Thus, upon the automatic expiration of an administrative rule, DOAH is divested of jurisdiction. Contrary to Appellant s assertion, there is no express or direct conflict between the First DCA s opinion and any other district court including the Fourth 3
9 District Court of Appeal. In Witmer v. Dep t. of Bus. and Prof. Reg., Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, 662 So.2d 1299 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) the Court addressed the enforcement of emergency rules against a licensee when the pertinent language now found in Section (3)(a), F.S., did not even exist. At the time of the Fourth DCA s opinion, in Witmer, supra, Section (1), F.S., which is the statutory predecessor to Section (3)(a), F.S., supra, read [a]ny person substantially affected by a rule may seek an administrative determination of the invalidity of the rule on the ground that the rule is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. Therefore, in 1995, there was no language limiting the time within which a rule challenge could be brought. The statutory language the First DCA relied upon for its holding in the case below became law on October 1, See, Laws of Florida, s. 16, ch Therefore, Witmer having been decided in 1995, could not have analyzed the issue raised before and decided by the First DCA in the instant case below as to whether a rule is deemed to be in existence when the statute under which it was implemented has been repealed. There being a substantial difference between the legal issues addressed by the two decisions, there cannot be a conflict (express, direct, or otherwise) between the two courts. In order to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court, there must be an express or direct conflict between two district courts. Here there is no such 4
10 conflict, therefore, the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court does not attach and the Court should decline review. Further, the facts of this case are not analogous to the Witmer case. In Witmer a veterinarian s license was disciplined pursuant to emergency rules enacted by the Division. Here, the underlying action is the result of Appellant availing itself of the arbitration provisions of then-existing Section (6), F.S., and then failing to abide by the rules that were in place and unchallenged during the time of the arbitration proceeding by refusing to pay the Office s expert witness fees, costs, and expenses despite an arbitration Award that directed them to do so after the arbitration was completed. Rule 69O (7), F.A.C., under which the arbitration panel made those findings has never been challenged. 5
11 ARGUMENT THERE IS NO DIRECT OR EXPRESS CONFLICT BETWEEN THE OPINION ISSUED BY THE FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL AND THE WITMER OPINION ISSUED BY THE FOURTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL IN 1995 In order to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of the Florida Supreme Court when the district court below has failed to certify the matter, an Appellant must demonstrate that its case fits within one of the parameters of Rule 9.030, Fla. R. App. P. The provision which Appellant seeks to proceed under states specifically: (2) The discretionary jurisdiction of the supreme court may be sought to review (A) decisions of district courts of appeal that (iv) expressly and directly conflict with a decision of another district court of appeal or of the supreme court on the same question of law; [Emphasis added] In this instance Appellant claims that there is a direct or express conflict between the decision in this case from the First DCA and the decision in Witmer v. Dep t. of Bus. and Prof. Reg., 662 So.2d 1299 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), from the Fourth DCA. No such conflict exists nor can it exist when the statute under which the rule challenge in this case was brought did not exist in its current iteration when the Witmer opinion was issued. Further, where the district court below has not certified the matter, Appellant cannot proceed under subsection (2)(A)(v) of the appellate rule cited above which states a question certified to be of great public importance. Section (3)(a), F.S. (2008) sets the temporal parameters within which 6
12 an existing rule may be challenged. It states in pertinent part [a] substantially affected person may seek an administrative determination of the invalidity of an existing rule at any time during the existence of the rule. [Emphasis added]. The prior iteration of this statute under which Witmer was decided, Section (1), F.S. (1995), stated [a]ny person substantially affected by a rule may seek an administrative determination of the invalidity of the rule on the ground that the rule is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. Thus, at the time Witmer was decided there was no temporal limitation requiring that the rule still be in force and effect at the time of the rule challenge. Here, subsequent to the disapproval of a rate filing, Appellant availed itself of the provision of Section (6), F.S. permitting an arbitration in lieu of an administrative hearing. The arbitration was held, no administrative rules were challenged during the arbitration process, and an Award was issued in June Then by letter dated July 23, 2008, after availing itself of the arbitration process, Appellant refused to pay the Office s expert witness even though such payment was required by Rules 69O (1)(d), and 69O (7), F.A.C. Subsequent to the Award being issued, effective July 1, 2008, Section (6), F.S., permitting arbitration, was repealed by the Legislature. When a statute is repealed, any rules created to implement the statute automatically expire upon such repeal. Christo v. State, Dep t. of Banking and Fin., 7
13 649 So.2d 318 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Canal Ins. Co. v. Cont l Cas. Co., 489 So.2d 136, 138 (Fla 2nd DCA 1986) (citing, Hulmes v. Div. of Ret., Dep t. of Admin., 418 So.2d 268 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)). The rule challenge was not filed until June 5, 2009, roughly one year after the arbitration Award had been entered and well past the time for challenging that Award pursuant to Sections and , F.S. and Rule 69O (7), F.A.C. Appellant is attempting to benefit from the right to arbitrate while ignoring a valid administrative rule and seeking to invalidate that rule long after the appropriate time for such a challenge. Upon the automatic expiration of the administrative rule by operation of law, neither the DOAH nor its ALJ had jurisdiction to hear the rule challenge under the plain language of Section (3)(a), F.S. Department of Revenue v. Sheraton Bal Harbour Assoc., Ltd., 864 So.2d 454 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). Simply put, that is what the First DCA found in its opinion. [Op. at p. 3]. A direct or express conflict exists when the difference between two appellate opinions on the same question of law are so diverse as to be irreconcilable. Aravena v. Miami-Dade County, 928 So.2d 1163 (Fla. 2006). The First and Fourth DCA s opinions at issue here analyzed and rendered decisions regarding two different statutes and two dissimilar sets of factual circumstances. In 1995, the Witmer Court had the option of permitting a rule challenge against an emergency rule that was no longer in existence because there was no limitation in the statute to prevent that. 8
14 Here, the plain language of the statute prevents a rule challenge to be brought after the rule ceases to exist. Therefore, there is no conflict. Appellant argues that like in Witmer the agency here has brought a disciplinary proceeding against Appellant that would permit a rule challenge afterthe-fact. However, that proposition is distinguishable on the basis of the disparate facts between the cases. Witmer involved a disciplinary action against a licensee where the emergency rules created the operative allegation that the licensee had violated those emergency rules. Here, by contrast, Appellant elected to arbitrate the disapproval of its rate filing under the applicable statute and rules in effect at that time knowing full well that it was required to comply with those statutes and rules unless it instituted a challenge to those rules prior to or during the arbitration process. That did not happen. Instead, when the Office sought to enforce the arbitration Award and sought payment of its expert witness fees, costs, and expenses, Appellant refused to comply with the unchallenged rules requiring it to pay the Office s expert witness. Nothing prevented Appellant from initiating a timely rule challenge prior to or during the arbitration process. Appellant is now seeking to utilize this Court to redress its failure to timely challenge Rule 69O (1)(d), F.A.C. Finally, with regard to Appellant s argument that this case is a matter of great public importance, that is only significant when there is a certification by the district 9
15 court. See, Rule 9.030(2)(A)(v), Fla. R. App. P. Even absent that, this case deals with a statute that has been repealed and rules that have expired by operation of law. It is not a scenario that can be repeated because the arbitration statute has been repealed and all pending arbitrations have come to conclusion. The facts of this case relate only to this particular Appellant. CONCLUSION It is clear that the rule challenge below was brought pursuant to Section (3)(a), F.S., (2008), which requires that a rule be in existence at the time of the rule challenge. The statute considered and applied by the Witmer Court did not have that language in it and therefore there can be no direct or express conflict between the two district courts. As that is a requirement to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court when the district court has refused to certify the matter, Appellees respectfully request that this Court decline review. 10
16 Respectfully submitted this day of, ELENITA GOMEZ, ESQUIRE Fla. Bar No Assistant General Counsel Office of Insurance Regulation Legal Services Office 200 E. Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida (850)
17 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that an original of the JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF OF THE APPELLEES OFFICE OF INSURANCE REGULATION AND FINANCIAL SERVICES COMMISSION has been furnished by Hand-Delivery to Thomas D. Hall, Clerk of Court, Supreme Court of Florida, and by Electronic Mail to e-file@flcourts.org, and that a true and correct copy has been furnished via Electronic Mail to: Richard Santurri, Esquire and Douglas Mang, Esquire, Mang Law Firm, P.A., 660 E. Jefferson Street, Tallahassee, Florida, 32301, this day of, Elenita Gomez, Esquire CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the size and style of the print used herein is 14 point proportionally spaced Times New Roman type in compliance with the font requirements of Rule 9.210(a)(2), Fla. R. App. P. 12 Elenita Gomez, Esquire
CASE NO. 1D Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and J. Clifton Cox, Special Counsel, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA VERIZON BUSINESS PURCHASING, LLC, v. Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
More informationCASE NO. 1D An appeal from an order of the Department of Children and Families.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA MICHELLE WADE, v. Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE NO. 1D10-2502
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 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
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. 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 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 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 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 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 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
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 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 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 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 informationJURISDICTIONAL BRIEF OF RESPONDENT
Electronically Filed 07/17/2013 02:38:44 PM ET RECEIVED, 7/17/2013 14:43:35, Thomas D. Hall, Clerk, Supreme Court IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC13-1244 BENJAMIN and BETH ERGAS, FOURTH 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 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 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 informationLower Case No CC O
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY, Appellant, Case No. 2016-CV-000038-A-O Lower Case No. 2015-CC-009396-O v. CENTRAL FLORIDA
More informationThird District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed April 26, 2017. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D16-2650 Lower Tribunal Nos. 08-21731, 08-22479, 08-22491,
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 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 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 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 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 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. v. CASE NO. SC ON DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA RICHARD DUCHARME, Petitioner, v. CASE NO. SC05-290 STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. / ON DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF OF
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 informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Petitioner, CASE NO. v. DCA CASE NO. 3D Lower Tribunal Case No
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA SANDRA CARTER, Petitioner, CASE NO. v. DCA CASE NO. 3D10-326 Lower Tribunal Case No. 07-882 MONROE COUNTY, Respondent. / PETITIONER CARTER S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION On Review
More informationOF FLORIDA. Appeals from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Jeri Beth Cohen, Judge. Pollack & Rosen, P.A., and Mark E. Pollack, for appellants.
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. 2006 METRO BUILDING MATERIALS CORP. and MANUEL
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 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 informationIN THE APPELLATE DIVISION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY. Circuit Court Case No.
IN THE APPELLATE DIVISION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY Warren Redlich, Appellant vs. Circuit Court Case No. 2016-000045-AC-01 State of Florida, Appellee /
More informationentered an order denying the motion for reconsideration, rehearing and
SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 13-9999 DANNY'S BACKHOE SERVICE, LLC, Appellant/Petitioner, First District Court of Appeals -vs- Case No. 1D12-5142 AUTO OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee/Respondent.
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 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 informationAppellant, CASE NO. 1D An appeal from an order of the Florida Housing Finance Corporation.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA VILLA CAPRI ASSOCIATES, LTD., NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED v. Appellant, CASE
More informationSTATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA. COMMODITY CONTROL CORPORATION, d/b/a INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT & SUPPLIES, Petitioner,
STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA COMMODITY CONTROL CORPORATION, d/b/a INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT & SUPPLIES, Petitioner, vs. DOR CASE NO. 00-2-FOF DOAH CASE NO. 99-1613 STATE OF FLORIDA
More informationThird District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D. 2009
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D. 2009 Opinion filed July 15, 2009. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D08-2376 Lower Tribunal No. 07-5548
More informationThird District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed April 13, 2016. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D15-1047 Lower Tribunal No. 08-3100 Florida Insurance
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 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 informationThird District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D. 2012
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D. 2012 Opinion filed July 11, 2012. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D11-162 Lower Tribunal No. 10-15149
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 informationCASE NO. 1D An appeal from an order from the Department of Juvenile Justice. Christina K. Daly, Interim Secretary.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA PINELLAS COUNTY, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION
More informationDISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT RECOVERY RACING, LLC, d/b/a MASERATI OF FT. LAUDERDALE and NEW COUNTRY MOTOR CARS OF PALM BEACH, LLC, d/b/a MASERATI OF PALM BEACH, Appellants,
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT. v. Case No. 5D CORRECTED
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT LOUIS PHILIP LENTINI, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF MICHAEL E. LENTINI, JR., Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES
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 informationCase No. SC DCA Case No. 2D On Requested Discretionary Review from the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Case No. SC10-312 DCA Case No. 2D08-2864 On Requested Discretionary Review from the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA KARL E. WIEDAMANN Petitioner
More informationThird District Court of Appeal State of Florida, January Term, A.D. 2011
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, January Term, A.D. 2011 Opinion filed May 25, 2011. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D11-180 Lower Tribunal No. 10-38278
More informationOF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT
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. 2003 MAGNETIC IMAGING SYSTEMS, ** I, LTD.,
More informationPETITIONER'S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Case No. SC04-2422 Lower Court Case No. 1D03-4547 JEROME LOVETT, : : Petitioner, : : v. : : MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, : : Respondent. : : PETITIONER'S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION RICHARD
More informationCASE NO. 1D An appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims. Doris E. Jenkins, Judge.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA AMANDA HARRELL, v. Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE NO. 1D09-3331
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 informationCASE NO. 1D Kimberly J. Fernandes of Kelley Kronenberg, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellants.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA GREAT CLEANING CORPORATION/ ASCENDANT ETC., Appellants, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF
More informationCASE NO. 1D An appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims. David Langham, Judge.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA SHERRY KEETON, v. Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE NO. 1D10-5789
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Case No. SC Fifth DCA Case No. 5D10-19, Lake County
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Case No. SC11-1282 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
More informationCASE NO. 1D An appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims. Charles M. Hill, III, Judge.
MIAMI DADE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD/ GALLAGHER BASSETT, v. Appellants, ONEAL SMITH, IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING
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: 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 informationDISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT July Term 2010
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT July Term 2010 ALEXANDER G. SARIS, Appellant, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY, HUSTRIBERTO
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 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. JEDAK CORPORATION D/B/A RAZZLE'S, Appellant, v. Case No.
More informationOF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT
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. 2004 DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES OF SOUTH FLORIDA
More informationDISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT RICHARD B.WEBBER, II, as the Chapter 7 Trustee for FREDERICK J. KEITEL, III, and FJK IV PROPERTIES, INC., a Florida corporation, Jointly
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 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 informationv No Court of Claims v No Court of Claims v No Court of Claims
S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N C O U R T O F A P P E A L S ALTICOR, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, FOR PUBLICATION May 22, 2018 9:05 a.m. v No. 337404 Court of Claims DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, LC No. 17-000011-MT
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION CASE NUMBER SC
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION CASE NUMBER SC07-2071 APPELLATE CASE NO: 3D06-1175 SUSAN PARKER FEIN, Circuit Case Numbers: 03-13889 CA 22 03-11222 CA 22 04-10875 CA 22 Consolidated
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC05-1459 DR. ROBERT D. SIMON, M.D., P.A. a/a/o ERIC HON, Petitioner, v. PROGRESSIVE EXPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent. On Review From The District Court of
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 SERENITY HARPER, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D17-4987 )
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 BETTY E. NEW, Appellant, v. Case No. 2D16-5647 DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA CLIFFORD KORNFIELD, ET AL. CASE NO. SC03-300 Plaintiffs/Petitioners v. JOEL ROBBINS, ETC, SPRING TERM, A.D. 2003 Defendants/Respondents / ON APPEAL FROM THE
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 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 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 informationOF FLORIDA. A Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Appellate Division, Kevin Emas, Diane Ward, Israel Reyes, Judges.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DISPOSED OF. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT JULY TERM, A.D. 2006 CORAL IMAGING SERVICES, A/O/A VIRGILIO REYES,
More informationAn appeal from an order of the Department of Management Services.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA KENNETH C. JENNE, v. Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE NO. 1D09-2959
More informationIN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO MICHAEL SIMIC ) CASE NO. CV 12 782489 ) Plaintiff-Appellant, ) JUDGE JOHN P. O DONNELL ) vs. ) ) ACCOUNTANCY BOARD OF OHIO ) JOURNAL ENTRY AFFIRMING THE
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 informationLAW & MOTION DEPARTMENT 18 HONORABLE HELEN I. BENDIX
LAW & MOTION DEPARTMENT 18 HONORABLE HELEN I. BENDIX Hearing Date: 2/10/09 Case Name: COUNTY OF ORANGE v. BOARD OF RETIREMENT Case No.: BC389758 Motion: MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS. Moving Party:
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEAKER SERVICES, INC., Petitioner-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED November 26, 2013 v No. 313983 Tax Tribunal DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, LC No. 00-431800 Respondent-Appellee. Before:
More informationCASE NO. 1D An appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims. Donna S. Remsnyder, Judge.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA ALVIN JONES, v. Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE NO. 1D10-1043
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 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No D. C. Docket No. 1:09-cv JLK. versus
Merly Nunez v. GEICO General Insurance Compan Doc. 1116498500 Case: 10-13183 Date Filed: 04/03/2012 Page: 1 of 13 [PUBLISH] MERLY NUNEZ, a.k.a. Nunez Merly, IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
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 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 informationJUDGE WATSON'S NOTICE OF COMPLIANCE WITH OMNIBUS ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS DATED DECEMBER 20, 2013
Filing # 8818506 Electronically Filed 01/06/2014 10:45:52 AM RECEIVED, 1/6/2014 10:48:40, John A. Tomasino, Clerk, Supreme Court BEFORE THE FLORIDA JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS COMMISSION STATE OF FLORIDA INQUIRY
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, AMERICAN PIONEER TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, FLORIDA LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION, ATTORNEYS TITLE INSURANCE FUND, INC., FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF INDEPENDENT
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 informationANGELO BARRERA CASE NO.: CVA LOWER COURT CASE NO.:
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA ANGELO BARRERA Appellant, CASE NO.: CVA1 07-02 LOWER COURT CASE NO.: 2006-TR-191094-O v. STATE OF FLORIDA Appellee.
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. CASE NO. SC d DCA CASE NO. 3D05-951
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC06-283 3d DCA CASE NO. 3D05-951 BRASS & SINGER, P.A., (a/o/a Mildred Solages) vs. Petitioner, UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent. / PETITIONER=S
More informationSupreme Court of Florida
Supreme Court of Florida ANSTEAD, J. No. SC05-936 KATHLEEN MILLER, et vir, Appellants, vs. SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. [May 18, 2006] We have for review a question of Florida law certified
More informationSupreme Court of Florida
Supreme Court of Florida ANSTEAD, J. No. SC06-1088 JUAN E. CEBALLO, et al., Petitioners, vs. CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, Respondent. [September 20, 2007] This case is before the Court for
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 informationOF FLORIDA. An Appeal of a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Jeri B. Cohen, 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 JULY TERM A.D., 2004 MALKE DUNAEVESCHI, vs. Appellant, AMERICAN
More informationAn appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims. Kathryn S. Pecko, Judge.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA INTERIOR CUSTOM CONCEPTS AND PROTREGRITY SERVICES, INC., Appellants, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION
More informationThird District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed January 9, 2019. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D17-2723 Lower Tribunal No. 12-17609 The Pinnacle Condominium
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC THIRD DCA CASE NO.: 3D06-458
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA THIRD DCA CASE NO.: 3D06-458 CUSTER MEDICAL CENTER, (a/a/o Maximo Masis), vs. Petitioner, UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent. / PETITIONER=S REPLY BRIEF On
More information