IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF FLORIDA
|
|
- Lucy McKinney
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF FLORIDA ASSOCIATED UNIFORM RENTAL & LINEN SUPPLY, INC., Petitioner, Case No. SC DCA Case No.: 3D v. RKR MOTORS, INC., Respondent. On Discretionary Review From a Decision of the Third District Court of Appeal PETITIONER S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION MAILING ADDRESS: JACK J. AIELLO GUNSTER, YOAKLEY & STEWART, P.A. 777 S. Flagler Drive, Suite 500 East West Palm Beach, FL Tel.: Fax: jaiello@gunster.com Attorneys for Petitioner
2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND THE FACTS...1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT...3 JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT...4 ARGUMENT...4 I. THE DECISION OF THE THIRD DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL IN THIS CASE IS IN DIRECT CONFLICT WITH THE DECISION OF THE FOURTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL IN KNIGHT ENERGY SERVICES, INC. V. CR INTERNATIONAL ENTERPRISES AND/OR THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN MURRAY V. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION...4 A. The Trial Court Correctly Decided This Case Under Knight Energy Services...4 B. The Third DCA s Analysis and the Case Law Upon Which it Relied Confuses Lost Profits With Average Profits...5 C. The Murray Case...7 II. III. OTHER AUTHORITIES ALSO SUPPORT THIS COURT EXERCISING ITS DISCRETION TO TAKE JURISDICTION...8 IMPORTANCE OF THIS ISSUE FOR FUTURE LITIGATION...8 IV. CONCLUSION...10 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE -i-
3 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES STATE CASES Boca Developers, Inc. v. Fine Decorators, Inc., 862 So. 2d 803 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)... 5, 6 Indian River Colony Club, Inc. v. Schopke Construction & Engineering, Inc., 592 So. 2d 1185 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)... 5, 6 Knight Energy Services, Inc. v. CR International Enterprises, 616 So. 2d 1079 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 Murray v. Department of Transportation, 687 So. 2d 825 (Fla. 1997)... 3, 4, 7, 8, 10 Physicians Reference Laboratories, Inc. v. Daniel Seckinger, M.D. & Associates, P.A., 501 So. 2d 107 (Fla. 3DCA 1987)... 5, 6 MISCELLANEOUS Robert L. Dunn, Recovery of Damages for Lost Profits, 6.5 (2005)... 8 Fla. R. App. P (a)(2)(A)(iv)... 4 Fla. Stat (2)... 8 ii
4 STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND THE FACTS RKR Motors and Associated Uniform entered into three contracts under which Associated Uniform would rent and launder uniforms for use by RKR Motors employees. (App. at 2) After RKR Motors terminated the contracts, Associated Uniform sued for breach of contract, among other claims. (Id.) The contract claim sought liquidated damages in the sum of $110, or compensatory damages and lost profits if liquidated damages were deemed unrecoverable. (App. at 2-3) RKR Motors answered and asserted that the liquidated damages clause was unreasonable, a penalty, and unconscionable on its face because the clause permits Associated Uniform to receive 75% of the total gross payments of the contracts, while providing no services. (App. at 3) Just before trial, RKR Motors admitted liability to breaching the contracts. (Id.) Thus, the only remaining issues to be determined were the amount and type of damages to be awarded Associated Uniform. (Id.) At the bench trial, the parties disagreed on the amount of lost profits. Associated Uniform s expert calculated lost profits at $82,444, while RKR Motors expert calculated the lost profits at $10,437. (App. at 4) The difference between the two lost profits calculations was that RKR Motors expert subtracted from the projected revenue not only the expenses that Associated Uniform would save as a result of not having to fulfill the 1
5 contracts, but also a prorated share of Associated Uniform s fixed expenses, such as administrative expenses. (App. at 4) The trial court agreed with Associated Uniform s expert, because his valuation made Associated Uniform whole by only taking into account the amount of extra expense that Associated Uniform would incur to service RKR Motors contracts. (App. at 5) Based upon that, the trial court found that Associated Uniform suffered $82,444 in actual profits and awarded that amount, declining to award the liquidated damages amount. As the trial court stated: (Id.) Plaintiff is in the business of renting uniforms and providing service on those uniforms, regardless of obtaining the Defendant s account. As such, the costs that were expended for overhead would have been expended regardless, as Plaintiff was not seeking to expand their operations, nor was the payment to provide for the expansion of operations by hiring more employees and expanding production facilities. Further, Plaintiff did not expect to put an undue burden on their operations since their overhead, salaries, rent and a number of other costs was something that Plaintiff knew it already had. Since the overhead is already on-going and the salaries are already being paid, the only extra overhead to incur in order to service the Defendant s account is contained within the valuation provided by Plaintiff s expert, which is the amount Plaintiff needs to expend over and above what Plaintiff was already expending in order to service Defendant s account. RKR Motors appealed, challenging the amount of lost profits awarded because it did not average all overhead expenses of the business and allocate them 2
6 proportionately to these contracts. (App. at 6, 7) Associated Uniform crossappealed because the trial court did not award liquidated damages, even though it found that the liquidated damages amount was not disproportionate to Associated Uniform s actual lost profits. (App. at 6) SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT The error committed by the Third DCA in this case was applying a lost profits model that does not actually award lost profits. Instead, it awards what would constitute average profits across all contracts within the company. That damage model does not give the non-breaching party the benefit of its bargain or indemnify it for the harm actually caused. In Knight Energy Services, the Fourth DCA applied the correct damages model, not deducting from the contract revenue any amount of fixed costs that would not be saved by not having to perform the contract. The present decision of the Third DCA expressly and directly conflicts with the decision in Knight Energy Services. In addition, the present decision conflicts with the decision of this Court in Murray v. Department of Transportation, in which this Court approved an eminent domain damages calculation that does not include a deduction for those fixed costs that would not be saved by the loss of a portion of the entity s business operation. 3
7 JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT The Florida Supreme Court has discretionary jurisdiction to review a decision of a district court of appeal that expressly and directly conflicts with a decision of another district court of appeal or of the Supreme Court on the same question of law. Fla. R. App. P (a)(2)(A)(iv). ARGUMENT I. THE DECISION OF THE THIRD DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL IN THIS CASE IS IN DIRECT CONFLICT WITH THE DECISION OF THE FOURTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL IN KNIGHT ENERGY SERVICES, INC. V. CR INTERNATIONAL ENTERPRISES AND/OR THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN MURRAY V. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION A. The Trial Court Correctly Decided This Case Under Knight Energy Services In Knight Energy Services, the Fourth DCA affirmed the trial court s award of lost profits, concluding that the non-breaching party seeking lost profits is entitled to the contract price less a deduction for just those costs and expenses that were necessary to fully perform. Knight Energy Services, Inc. v. CR International Enterprises, 616 So. 2d 1079, 1080 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). In the case, there was clear testimony that there were no deductible costs or expenses necessary to fully perform the contract, which justified the award of the full contract price. (Id.) In the present case, the trial court found, based upon the evidence, that the extra overhead items included in RKR Motors expert s lost profits calculation were items that Associated Uniform would have to incur whether or not it performed the 4
8 contracts with RKR Motors. (App. at 5) Thus, performing the RKR contracts would not cause these extra overhead expenses to be incurred, and such expenses would not be saved by not having to perform the contracts. (Id.) The trial court recognized that in order to truly compensate Associated Uniform for the lost profits it would have actually earned had the contracts been performed, the procedure set forth in Knight Energy Services must be followed. (Id.) B. The Third DCA s Analysis and the Case Law Upon Which it Relied Confuses Lost Profits With Average Profits The Knight Energy Services decision was or should have been good guidance for the Third DCA in its decision. Instead, the Third DCA followed an earlier decision from the Third DCA, a decision from the Fifth DCA, and another decision from the Fourth DCA in reversing the trial court and adopting the damages methodology of RKR Motors expert. (App. at 8-10) See Physicians Reference Lab, Inc. v. Daniel Seckinger, M.D. & Assocs., P.A., 501 So. 2d 107 (Fla. 3DCA 1987); Indian River Colony Club, Inc. v. Schopke Constr. & Eng g, Inc., 592 So. 2d 1185 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); and Boca Developers, Inc. v. Fine Decorators, Inc., 862 So. 2d 803 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). In Boca, the Fourth DCA concluded that fixed expenses had to be allocated across the board to all the contracts performed by the non-breaching party (apparently, as if all of the company s contracts had been breached at once) and, thus, deducted from any calculation of lost profits. (Id.) The Boca decision did not overrule the Knight 5
9 Energy Services decision but, rather, distinguished Knight Energy Services because of the clear testimony in the latter case that overhead expenses were not necessary to fully perform the contract. See Boca, 862 So. 2d at 805. statement: Perhaps the main flaw in the Third DCA s analysis is the following The holdings in Boca, Indian River, and Physicians Reference make perfect sense. Requiring a deduction of a share of fixed costs related to the performance of a contract allows for a true measurement of the amount the non-breaching party would have earned on the contract had there been no breach, which is the proper measure of damages. (App. at 10) (emphasis added) To the contrary, deducting a share of fixed costs to determine lost profit only makes sense if all of the company s contracts were breached at once. In that case, all of the fixed costs would then have been saved, and allocating that savings across the contracts would make sense. When a single or a few contracts are breached, as here, but the company continues substantially all of its other business such that many items of overhead are unaffected and must still be paid (e.g. rent and employees), deducting a share of such fixed expenses from the damages award punishes the plaintiff by making the plaintiff, in effect, pay those expenses twice. Determining the actual lost profits on a breached contract requires a calculation of the marginal revenues less the marginal expenses, not a determination of the average profits on all contracts within the company. 6
10 Therefore, for purposes of the Supreme Court s discretionary jurisdiction, the Third DCA s opinion in this case expressly and directly conflicts with the Fourth DCA s Knight Energy Services decision and satisfies the technical criteria of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure that permit this Court to take jurisdiction of the case. C. The Murray Case In Murray v. Department of Transportation, this Court was called upon to interpret one of Florida s eminent domain statutes relating to the calculation of business damages. See Murray v. Department of Transportation, 687 So. 2d 825 (Fla. 1997). The statute permitted two alternative calculations. This Court concluded that the trial court had discretion to permit the alternative calculation that would not include a deduction for those fixed costs that would remain the same even after the business operation lost some of its parking spaces through eminent domain. While Murray was interpreting a specific statute relating to eminent domain, the logic of the methodology set forth by the legislature and interpreted by this Court is the same as the argument made by Associated Uniform here. And while this Court did not mandate the use of that alternative calculation method in eminent domain cases, it determined that the trial court had discretion to use it. Id. at 826. Based upon the logic of Murray, the trial court here should at least have been afforded discretion by the Third DCA to use the calculation 7
11 method that it employed, consistent with the Knight Energy Services case. Although the Murray decision relates to Florida s eminent domain statutes, the determination of what expenses should be included in the analysis of lost profits in a business loss case is conceptually the same. Therefore, as an alternative argument on conflict jurisdiction, the Third DCA s decision expressly and directly conflicts with the decision of this Court in Murray. II. OTHER AUTHORITIES ALSO SUPPORT THIS COURT EXERCISING ITS DISCRETION TO TAKE JURISDICTION Looking ahead to other materials that this Court would be able to consider if it accepts jurisdiction, Florida s Uniform Commercial Code also has a section addressing lost profits. In (2), where a contract dispute involves a sale agreement, it is not appropriate to deduct overhead (or, as framed in the statute, one is entitled to recover overhead) in calculating lost profits. Also, Florida is in the minority on the issue raised in this case, and the overwhelming majority of other states do not require the deduction of fixed costs/overhead from the contract price to determine lost profits but, instead, require the deduction of only those costs that will be saved by not having to perform. See Robert L. Dunn, Recovery of Damages for Lost Profits, 6.5 at (2005). III. IMPORTANCE OF THIS ISSUE FOR FUTURE LITIGATION The issue raised here, the proper calculation of lost profits, is one that will recur over and over in Florida, not only in contracts cases but in any case where the 8
12 actions of a wrongdoer cause a compensable loss of profits. As noted above, by requiring an allocation to the breached contract of even those fixed costs that would not be saved by not having to perform after the breach, the court is really awarding average profits, not lost profits. That conceptual measure does not indemnify the plaintiff and does not grant the plaintiff the benefit of its bargain. In fact, absurd results may flow from the rule applied by the Third DCA in this case. For example, if a company has in recent history broken even in its business, the Third DCA s rule of law suggests that its customers may breach the contract and be liable for no damages. Ironically, awarding no damages would then put the company into a loss position for that year because it saved only the limited expenses directly necessary to have performed that contract but lost all of the revenue from that contract. Therefore, even more absurd, the next customer that breaches might argue that after allocating fixed costs from this company that is now losing money, the company actually owes to the breaching customer the average net loss avoided. The fiction that the Third DCA analysis employs is that when a contract is breached, regardless of the evidence, a prorated amount of fixed costs are saved. Considering just one item, rent, for example, it is plain to see that that would not be true. Instead, the Third DCA s methodology requires the non-breaching party to pay those fixed costs twice: the first time because they were due and going to be 9
13 paid regardless of whether it performed a contract and the second time, by deducting a prorated amount from the otherwise awardable lost profits. In this case, when the Third DCA reduced the damages award by $72,000 for a prorated share of the company s expenses that Associated Uniform would have incurred notwithstanding the breach, it charged Associated Uniform for expenses that it had already paid once. The mathematical effect was to charge double the prorated amount of fixed costs, or $144,000, with respect to this contract. Because that approach is logically incorrect, fails to award the benefit of the bargain, conflicts with the Knight Energy Services case from the Fourth DCA and the Murray decision from this Court, is incongruous with the rule of law applied in the overwhelming majority of jurisdictions around the country, and is an issue that will arise again and again in Florida jurisprudence, this Court should exercise its discretion to take jurisdiction of this case and to determine the issue raised on the merits. IV. CONCLUSION This Court has discretionary jurisdiction to review the decision of the Third DCA below, and the Court should exercise that jurisdiction to consider the merits of Petitioner s argument. 10
14 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished by U.S. Mail to Richard A. Goetz, Esquire, Hodgson Russ, LLP, 1801 N. Military Trail, Suite 200, Boca Raton, FL 33431, this day of January, GUNSTER, YOAKLEY & STEWART, P.A. Attorneys for Plaintiff/Petitioner 777 South Flagler Drive, Suite 500 East West Palm Beach, FL Tel.: (561) ; Facsimile: (561) By: JACK J. AIELLO Florida Bar No CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE I HEREBY CERTIFY that this brief complies with the type size and style requirements and has been prepared in Times New Roman, 14 Point Font. JACK J. AIELLO Florida Bar No
IN 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 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 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 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 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 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
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 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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 informationDISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT July Term 2013
MAY, J. DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT July Term 2013 PALM BEACH POLO HOLDINGS, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY, a Texas corporation,
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 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. 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 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 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. 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 JULY TERM v. CASE NO.: 5D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM 2001 DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Appellant, v. CASE NO.: 5D01-1554 DAYSTAR FARMS, INC., ETC., Appellee. / Opinion filed January
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 DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT, 1525 PALM BEACH LAKES BLVD., WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33401
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT, 1525 PALM BEACH LAKES BLVD., WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33401 CASE NO.: 4D16-4120 LT NO. 502012CA013933XXXXMB ELIOT IVAN BERNSTEIN v. WILLIAM
More informationDISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT JAMES T. GELSOMINO, Appellant, v. ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY and BROWN & BROWN, INC., Appellees. No. 4D14-4767 [November 9, 2016] Appeal
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 REVERSING TRIAL COURT. Appellant, Ruth Stanford, appeals the hearing officer s determination that she failed to
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA APPELLATE CASE NO: 2011-CV-94-A-O Lower Case No.: 2011-TR-27543-A-W RUTH STANFORD, v. Appellant, STATE OF FLORIDA,
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Allstate Life Insurance Company, : Petitioner : : v. : No. 89 F.R. 1997 : Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, : Argued: December 9, 2009 Respondent : BEFORE: HONORABLE
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 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 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 informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM v. CASE NO. 5D00-111
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2001 SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. CASE NO. 5D00-111 RUTH W. HAYNES, etc., et al., Appellees. / Opinion
More informationDISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT THE LEXINGTON CLUB COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INC., and THE LEXINGTON CLUB VILLAS CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellants, v. LOVE MADISON,
More informationSUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. CASE NO.: SC L.T. Case No.: 3D DOLL ENTERPRISES, INC, Petitioner, GUILLERMO SOSTCHIN, Respondent.
SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC03-1343 L.T. Case No.: 3D01-2490 DOLL ENTERPRISES, INC, Petitioner, v. GUILLERMO SOSTCHIN, Respondent. RESPONDENT S JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF PHILIP D. PARRISH, P.A. One
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA. Petitioner, Case No.: SC LT Case No.: 1D PETITIONER'S AMENDED BRIEF ON JURISDICTION
IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA GREGG L. BLANN, Vs. Petitioner, Case No.: SC08-197 LT Case No.: 1D07-100 ANNETTE BLANN, Respondent, / PETITIONER'S AMENDED BRIEF ON JURISDICTION William S. Graessle
More informationDISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT SHERRY CLEMENS, as Personal Representative of the Estate of JOHN CLEMENS, deceased, Appellant, v. PETER NAMNUM, M.D., individually, PETER
More informationIN THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT SUPREME CT. CASE NO.: SC LOWER TRIBUNAL NO(S).: 1D CAA RETHELL BYRD CHANDLER, ETC., ET AL.
IN THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT SUPREME CT. CASE NO.: SC10-1068 LOWER TRIBUNAL NO(S).: 1D09-2595 06-001525CAA RETHELL BYRD CHANDLER, ETC., ET AL. Petitioners, vs. GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY, Respondent. PETITIONERS
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 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 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 informationSUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA THE HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE MIDWEST, for itself and on behalf of WILLIE BRADHAM, LILLIE BRADHAM and CEDRICK FRASIER, CASE NO: SC03-220 Petitioners, vs. CYNTHIA NICHOLS
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA, a federally recognized Indian Tribe, Petitioner, Sup. Ct. Case No. SC11-1854 v. DCA Case No. 4D10-456 Lower Case No. 08-13474 CACE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT
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 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 2002 STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D00-3064 DAN RAY WARREN, ET AL., Appellees. / Opinion
More informationSupreme Court of Florida
Supreme Court of Florida No. SC09-1914 DONALD WENDT, et al, Petitioners, vs. LA COSTA BEACH RESORT CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., Respondent. PER CURIAM. [June 9, 2011] This case is before the Court for
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 informationAppellant, CASE NO.: CVA
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA WEST SIDE CHIROPRACTIC, INC., A/A/O ROMANN GENEUS, v. Appellant, CASE NO.: CVA1 08-12 GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY, 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 informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. CASE NO. SC Lower Tribunal Case No. 3D ELIEZIER LEAL and CLARA LEON, Petitioners,
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC09-2312 Lower Tribunal Case No. 3D09-821 ELIEZIER LEAL and CLARA LEON, Petitioners, v. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, Respondent. ON DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
More informationv No Wayne Circuit Court
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 CITY OF DETROIT, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED March 15, 2018 v No. 337705 Wayne Circuit Court BAYLOR LTD, LC No. 16-010881-CZ Defendant-Appellee.
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 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 DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2003
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2003 ELLIS PEETLUK, Appellant, v. CASE NO. 5D01-3705 DEBORAH HUFFSTETLER, Appellee. / Decision filed April 4, 2003 Appeal
More informationNo. 1D On appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County. Monica J. Brasington, Judge. February 8, 2018
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL EDWARD A. CRAPO, as Alachua County Property Appraiser, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA No. 1D17-280 PROVIDENT GROUP - CONTINUUM PROPERTIES, L.L.C., a Florida not-for-profit
More informationDISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT January Term 2006
GROSS, J. DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT January Term 2006 RAYMOND J. LUCAS, Appellant, v. BANKATLANTIC, Appellee. No. 4D05-2285 [June 21, 2006] ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
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 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. 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 informationBILLY JOE L. MCFARLAND, ESQUIRE Florida Bar No: Del Prado, Suite A Cape Coral, Florida (239) Attorney for Petitioner
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA SUPREME COURT CASED NO. SC11-7 SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL CASE NO. 2D09-3774 LEE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT CASE NO. 07-CA-011255 ADVANTAGE BUILDERS
More informationA R G U M E N T MORANSAIS IS A FORESEEABLE PARTY AS OPPOSED TO A THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY THAT HAS BEEN DAMAGED BY THE NEGLIGENCE OF RESPONDENTS.
A R G U M E N T I. MORANSAIS IS A FORESEEABLE PARTY AS OPPOSED TO A THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY THAT HAS BEEN DAMAGED BY THE NEGLIGENCE OF RESPONDENTS. Respondents' arguments regarding the status of Moransais
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 informationSUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. v. Lower Tribunal No.: 2D RESPONDENTS AMENDED RESPONSE TO PETITIONERS JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF
SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA AKERMAN, SENTERFITT & EIDSON, P.A. a Florida professional service corporation, and JOSEPH RUGG, an individual, Petitioners, CASE NO. SC06-2312 v. Lower Tribunal No.: 2D05-4688
More informationDISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT CARLOS M. RIVERA and YANIRA J. PENA SANTIAGO, Appellants, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INCORPORATED
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 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 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 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 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 2007 STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. Case No. 5D06-3147 JESSICA LORENZO F/K/A JESSICA DIBBLE, ET AL.,
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 informationTHOMAS P. DORE, ET AL., SUBSTITUTE TRUSTEES. Wright, Arthur, Salmon, James P. (Retired, Specially Assigned),
UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 0230 September Term, 2015 MARVIN A. VAN DEN HEUVEL, ET AL. v. THOMAS P. DORE, ET AL., SUBSTITUTE TRUSTEES Wright, Arthur, Salmon, James P. (Retired,
More information2018 CO 42. No. 15SC934, Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Barriga Unreasonable Delay and Denial of Insurance Benefits Damages.
Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court are available to the public and can be accessed through the Judicial Branch s homepage at http://www.courts.state.co.us. Opinions are also posted on the Colorado
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC STACI LEVY, as Personal Representative of THE ESTATE OF BRANDON LEVY. Petitioner, vs.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC01-2786 STACI LEVY, as Personal Representative of THE ESTATE OF BRANDON LEVY Petitioner, vs. FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, a Florida corporation, Respondent.
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 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 information