IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC Fourth District Case No. 4DOI VIACOM INC., a Delaware corporation. Petitioner, vs.
|
|
- Lillian Ball
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC Fourth District Case No. 4DOI-4554 VIACOM INC., a Delaware corporation Petitioner, vs. JOHN M. TYSON Respondent. ON PETITION TO REVIEW A DECISION OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH DISTRICT INITIAL BRIEF ON JURISDICTION OF PETITIONER ROBERT W. PITTMAN, P.A. 701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1650 Miami, Florida Telephone: (786) Telecopy: (786) ROBERT W. PITTMAN, FBN Counsel for Defendant, Viacom Inc.
2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF CONTENTS... ii TABLE OF CITATIONS...iii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THIS BRIEF... v STATEMENT OF THE CASE... 1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT... 4 ARGUMENT: Tyson III Creates Conflict Jurisdiction By Applying The Test For Estoppel By Judgment To Determine Identity Of Causes Of Action For Purposes Of Res Judicata... 4 CONCLUSION CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE CERTIFICATE OF TYPE SIZE AND STYLE ii
3 TABLE OF CITATIONS Cases Albrecht v. State, 444 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 1984)... 1, 5, 8 Bagwell v. Bagwell, 14 So. 2d 841, 843 (Fla. 1943) 6 Dade Co. v. Matheson, 605 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)... 9 Greenstein v. Greenbrook, Ltd., 443 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)... 1, 8-9 Gordon v. Gordon, 59 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 1952) (Gordon II).. 1, 5-9 Gordon v. Gordon, 36 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 1948) (Gordon I).. 5, 6 Londono v. Turkey Creek, Inc., 609 So. 2d 14 (Fla. 1992) Mendez v. W. Flagler Family Ass n, 303 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1974).. 10 Mims v. Reid, 98 So. 2d 498 (Fla. 1957).. 9 Quality Type & Graphics v. Guetzloe, 513 So. 2d 1110 (Fla. 5 th DCA 1987).. 1, 8 Riehl v. Riehl, 60 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 1952)... 6 State v. McBride, 848 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 2003).. 4, 7 Tyson v. Viacom, Inc., 890 So. 2d 1205 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) ( Tyson III ) Tyson v. Viacom, Inc., 28 Fla. L. Weekly D2420 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) ( Tyson II ).. 3 Tyson v. Viacom, Inc., 760 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) ( Tyson I ) 2 iii
4 Statutes & Rules Fla. Stat (3) 8 Fla. Stat (2).. 2 Fla. R. Civ. P (a). 9 Fla. R. App. P (a)(2)(A)(iv) 1 iv
5 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THIS BRIEF App. Blockbuster The Appendix to this Brief, consisting of a conformed copy of the decision below, Tyson v. Viacom, Inc., 890 So. 2d 1205 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) ( Tyson III ) Blockbuster Entertainment Group, a business unit of Viacom Inc. Tyson Respondent, plaintiff and appellant below, John M. Tyson Viacom Hollywood Video Petitioner, defendant and appellee below, Viacom, Inc. Hollywood Video, Inc. v
6 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Viacom seeks review of Tyson v. Viacom, Inc., 890 So. 2d 1205 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005), pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.030(a)(2)(A)(iv), because it applied the wrong test in determining, for purposes of res judicata, whether Tyson s latest complaint shares identity of causes of action with an earlier complaint. The test applied in Tyson III directly and expressly conflicts with the following decisions of this Court and the Third and Fifth District Courts of Appeal: Gordon v. Gordon, 59 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 1952); Albrecht v. State, 444 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 1984); Quality Type & Graphics v. Guetzloe, 513 So. 2d 1110 (Fla. 5 th DCA 1987); and Greenstein v. Greenbrook, Ltd., 443 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). Tyson entered into an employment contract ( Contract ) with Blockbuster commencing in May 1996 as Senior Vice President, Development-Domestic Video. App. at 1. Tyson was terminated for cause on November 25, Id. On February 11, 1997, Tyson filed a two-count complaint (the Original Action ) alleging that Viacom breached his Contract by wrongfully terminating him for cause, and further that Viacom violated Florida s whistle blower statute by allegedly terminating him in retaliation for protected conduct (i.e., faxing documents to an Oregon court alleging that a co-worker was performing tasks in violation of that court s injunction). App. at 1, 3; Fla. Stat (2). The gravamen of the Original Action was that Blockbuster s Senior Vice President of 1
7 Strategic Analysis, Mark Gilman, allegedly was performing tasks specified in Tyson s job description, and performing these duties in violation of an injunction entered by an Oregon court arising from a dispute between Blockbuster and Hollywood Video. App. at 1, Thus, Tyson s employment was allegedly part of a smoke screen scheme to shield Gilman s activities. App. at 1, 6. On June 6, 1997, the trial court dismissed Tyson s whistle blower count with leave to amend for failing to state a cause of action. App. at 2. Tyson did not amend but instead actively litigated his remaining breach of contract count for an additional 18 months. Id. Viacom moved for summary judgment on the breach of contract count, but Tyson did not respond and, instead, voluntarily dismissed this remaining count of the Original Action. App. at 2. Tyson then appealed the trial court s subsequent final order dismissing the whistle blower count. Id. The appellate court affirmed the trial court s dismissal. Id.; Tyson v. Viacom, Inc., 760 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) ( Tyson I ). On November 22, 2000, Tyson filed a second complaint realleging the breach of contract count from the Original Action and alleging a new count for fraud in the inducement (the New Action ). App. at 2. The New Action contained four new factual allegations: Viacom knew Tyson was relocating to work for Blockbuster in Florida; Gilman was first offered Tyson s position; Blockbuster did not inform Tyson of his role as a smoke screen for Gilman; and 2
8 Blockbuster did not inform Tyson of its intention to relocate to Texas. App. at 2. Otherwise, Tyson alleged the same facts in the New Action in support of the breach of contract and fraud in the inducement counts as he had alleged in the Original Action in support of the whistle blower count (and breach of contract count before he withdrew it). App. at 2 (majority), 16 (dissent) (emphasizing that Tyson could have included his fraud in the inducement count in the Original Action and that Tyson altered only the manner in which the facts were used to support the requisite elements of each count of his respective complaints). Viacom answered and thereafter moved for summary judgment on in its affirmative defense that Tyson s breach of contract and fraud in the inducement counts were barred by res judicata. App. at 2. Viacom argued that the Original Action and the New Action arose out of the same cause of action even alleging the same facts and should have been litigated together. App. at 2, 15, 18. The trial court granted Viacom s motion for summary judgment, and the appellate court affirmed. Tyson v. Viacom, Inc., 28 Fla. L. Weekly D2420 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) ( Tyson II ). On rehearing en banc, however, the appellate court majority withdrew the prior opinion and ruled that the doctrine of res judicata does not bar Tyson s claims. App. at 2 (i.e., Tyson III). The only issue on appeal concerning res judicata was whether the Original Action and the New Action arose from the same cause of action. App. at 3. 3
9 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT Res judicata prohibits not only relitigation of claims raised but also the litigation of claims that could have been raised in the prior action. State v. McBride, 848 So. 2d 287, 290 (Fla. 2003). Tyson III, however, limits the application of res judicata and the corollary rule against splitting causes of action so that they bar only subsequent identical counts (i.e., counts requiring the exact same elements of proof) rather than barring all claims arising from the same cause of action (i.e., same underlying facts or transaction). In so doing, the majority in Tyson III has eroded [the doctrine of res judicata] to a point of non-existence and effectively replaced it with the separate and distinct doctrine of judgment by estoppel. App. at 18 (May, Polen, JJ., dissenting). The identical-factual-proof test created and applied in Tyson III directly and expressly conflicts with the decisions of this Court in Gordon II and Albrecht, the Fifth District Court of Appeal in Quality Type & Graphics v. Guetzloe, and the Third District Court of Appeals in Greenstein v. Greenbrook, Ltd. ARGUMENT Tyson III creates conflict jurisdiction by applying the test for estoppel by judgment to determine identity of causes of action for purposes of res judicata The long-standing test established by this Court for determining identity of causes of action is whether the facts in a new complaint are essentially the same as the facts that were, or would have been required to be, presented in the original 4
10 complaint. Gordon v. Gordon, 59 So. 2d 40, (Fla. 1952) (Gordon II); see also Albrecht v. State, 444 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 1984) (citing Gordon II). In contrast, the majority in Tyson III applied the following test: whether the facts necessary to prove the claims are identical. 1 App. at 3 (majority) (concluding that [i]n Tyson s case, the facts necessary to prove his three claims were not identical ). The appellate court cites as the basis for this test: Albrecht v. State, 444 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 1984); and Gordon v. Gordon, 36 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 1948) (Gordon I). Id. A review of these cases reveals that the majority in Tyson III applied the wrong test by requiring identical factual proof and, thus, limiting res judicata to bar only identical claims or counts rather than all claims arising from the same cause of action. The Court in Albrecht recognized that [t]he determining factor in deciding whether the cause of action is the same is whether the facts or evidence necessary to maintain the suit are the same in both actions. 444 So. 2d at 12 (emphasis added) (citing Gordon II, not Gordon I). Significantly, Albrecht neither requires identical facts nor characterizes cause of action as synonymous with claim or count. Instead, the majority in Tyson III relied on another district court s misinterpretation of Gordon I for the identical requirement. App. at 3. 1 The majority in Tyson III uses the term claim as synonymous with the term count. Thus, Tyson s contract, statutory, and tort counts represent three claims. App. at 3. The majority, however, misconstrues this Court s precedence and limits the expression cause of action to mean claim, and thus count as well, rather than a superset of potentially multiple claims or counts. Compare App. at 3 with App. at (dissent) (distinguishing claims from cause of action). 5
11 In Gordon I, this Court briefly described the test for determining the identity of causes of action as the identity of the facts essential to the maintenance of the actions. 36 So. 2d at 776 (quoting Bagwell v. Bagwell, 14 So. 2d 841, 843 (Fla. 1943)). In two subsequent opinions, however, the Court clarified that res judicata does not require identical facts; instead, only estoppel by judgment applicable when a subsequent suit is based on a different cause of action requires the actual litigation of every point and question presented or the precise facts. See Riehl v. Riehl, 60 So. 2d 35, 36 (Fla. 1952) ( [Bagwell] is not controlling in the instant case because the test appropriately applied therein was estoppel by judgment and not res adjudicata. ); Gordon II, 59 So. 2d at (clarifying its decision in Gordon I, setting forth the appropriate test for identity of causes of action, and recognizing that Bagwell applied the test for estoppel by judgment). The seminal case on res judicata, and cited repeatedly in Albrecht, is not Gordon I, but Gordon II. Upon a careful review of [the Court s] decisions and a reconsideration of [Gordon I], the Court in Gordon II recognized that although Gordon I had cited the identity of facts language from Bagwell, the standard actually applied in Gordon I for determining identity of causes of action, and the correct standard for res judicata is: whether the facts in the second case [are] essentially the same as that which [were], or would have been required to be, presented in the first action. Gordon II, 59 So. 2d at 44. The Court in Gordon II 6
12 went on to recognize that if the cause of action was not the same, then estoppel by judgment comes into play and only those matters actually litigated and determined in the initial action are foreclosed not other matters which might have been, but were not, litigated or decided as in the case of res judicata. Id. at 43). Instead of considering whether the facts in the second case were essentially the same as those presented in the first action, the majority in Tyson III looked to see if the facts necessary to prove Tyson s claims or counts were identical. The facts necessary to prove two claims will only be identical if they share the same elements i.e., identical counts. Thus, under the test applied in Tyson III, res judicata would only bar subsequent identical counts (or at least arguably a count made up of a complete subset of elements) to a prior litigated count. See App. at (dissent) (recognizing that the majority s construction of the doctrine erodes it to the point of non-existence). Res judicata, however, prohibits not only relitigation of claims raised but also the litigation of claims that could have been raised in the prior action. State v. McBride, 848 So. 2d 287, 290 (Fla. 2003). Instead of applying the doctrine of res judicata, the appellate court s test effectively dispenses with the first step in Gordon II of determining whether the causes of action are the same, and goes straight to the less eclipsing test applied for estoppel by judgment i.e., barring only those matters presented and actually litigated. Gordon II, 59 So. 2d at 43, 45. 7
13 The identical-claim approach to defining causes of action applied by the majority in Tyson III is in sharp contrast to the transactional approach implied in Albrecht and Gordon II and expressly applied by other Florida courts of appeal. 2 For example, in Quality Type & Graphics v. Guetzloe, 513 So. 2d (Fla. 5 th DCA 1987), the court stated that it was incumbent upon [the plaintiff] to correctly state his basis for relief and then adequately prove it[,]... set[ting] out the facts of the occurrence or transaction and demand[ing] judgment in his favor on several bases, even mutually exclusive ones. (emphasis added). The court reasoned: it is an abuse of the legal process, and the defendant, to permit a plaintiff to sue on one legal theory and after losing because he cannot support his allegations to come back and allege the same occurrence or transaction and seek relief in a different legal theory. Id. (emphasis added). The conflict between the Fourth and Fifth District Courts of Appeal is undeniable, as the test annunciated by the majority in Tyson III cannot accommodate mutually-exclusive claims or different legal theories because the factual elements would not be identical. The Fifth District Court of Appeal is not alone in applying a transactional approach. In Greenstein v. Greenbrook, Ltd., the Third District Court of Appeal barred claims for breach of contract and tortuous interference because they 2 The transactional approach has been codified in the Administrative Procedures Act as well. See Fla. Stat (3) ( After the Court has rendered judgment on a petition for enforcement, no other petition shall be filed or adjudicated... on the basis of the same transaction or occurrence. ) (emphasis added). 8
14 shared the same cause of action with a prior resolved suit for specific performance. 443 So. 2d 296, 297 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). The court stated that it was incumbent upon the plaintiffs to raise all available claims or demands for relief arising out of the alleged breach. Their failure to do so precludes subjecting those defendants to another successive action based on the same conduct. Id. The majority in Tyson III lost site of the purpose of res judicata by constructing a test that precludes only identical counts rather than all claims arising from the same transaction or occurrence i.e., same cause of action. [Res judicata] is founded upon the sound proposition that there should be an end to litigation and that in the interest of the State every justiciable controversy should be settled in one action in order that the courts and the parties will not be pothered for the same cause by interminable litigation. Gordon II, 59 So. 2d at 44. Thus, [i]f the first suit is effective and available, and affords ample remedy to the plaintiff, the second suit is unnecessary and consequently vexatious. Mims v. Reid, 98 So. 2d 498, 501 (Fla. 1957) (quoting 1 Fla. Jur. Actions 42); see also Dade Co. v. Matheson, 605 So. 2d 469, 472 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (finding second suit on abandoned claim especially barred by rule against splitting causes of action). These same policy interests are promoted by the rules establishing compulsory counterclaims and preventing piecemeal appeals. See Fla. R. Civ. P (a) (requiring pleading of counterclaims arising out of the transaction or occurrence ) (emphasis added); Londono v. Turkey Creek, Inc., 609 So. 2d 14, 19 9
15 (Fla. 1992) ( The purpose of the compulsory counterclaim is to promote judicial efficiency by requiring defendants to raise claims arising from the same transaction or occurrence.... ); Mendez v. W. Flagler Family Ass n, 303 So. 2d 1, 5 (Fla. 1974) (underscoring that piecemeal appeals should not be permitted where claims are legally interrelated and in substance involve the same transaction ); App. at (dissent) (quoting same citations); see also App. at 14 (Gross, J., concurring) (arguing that transactional approach used to determine compulsory counterclaims should be used to determine if causes of action split). CONCLUSION The identical-factual-proof test applied in Tyson III reduces the doctrine of res judicata to an exercise of matching identical counts rather than causes of action. This interpretation of the doctrine directly and expressly conflicts with the decisions of this Court and other Florida Courts of Appeal. Viacom respectfully requests that the Court accept jurisdiction over the petition to safeguard the protection afforded by res judicata against vexatious and seriatim lawsuits. Respectfully submitted by: ROBERT W. PITTMAN, P.A. 701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1650 Miami, Florida Telephone: (786) Telecopy: (786) Counsel for Defendant, Viacom Inc. By: ROBERT W. PITTMAN Florida Bar No
16 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this day of April, 2005, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was sent by U.S. Mail to respondent s counsel, Mary B. Meeks, Esq., DeCubellis, Meeks & Uncapher, P.A., 837 North Garland Avenue, Post Office Box 4976, Orlando, Florida ROBERT W. PITTMAN CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH FONT REQUIREMENTS The undersigned certifies that the type size and style used in this brief is Times New Roman, 14-Point, proportionately spaced. ROBERT W. PITTMAN 11
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC L. T. CASE NO.: 4D
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC05-1644 L. T. CASE NO.: 4D04-1970 SANDRA H. LAND, vs. Petitioner, GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, Respondent. / JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF OF PETITIONER Rebecca J. Covey,
More informationSUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA SUPREME COURT CASE NO. SC DISTRICT COURT CASE NO. 3D L.T. CASE NO
SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA SUPREME COURT CASE NO. SC10-2453 DISTRICT COURT CASE NO. 3D 09-161 L.T. CASE NO. 05-15300 BARBARA J. TUCKER, Petitioner, vs. LPP MORTGAGE LTD., f/k/a LOAN PARTICIPANT PARTNERS,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC DISTRICT COURT CASE NO. 4D
Electronically Filed 10/09/2013 11:26:52 AM ET RECEIVED, 10/9/2013 11:28:34, Thomas D. Hall, Clerk, Supreme Court IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC2013-1834 DISTRICT COURT CASE NO. 4D11-3004
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Case No. SC On Appeal from the First District Court of Appeal LT Case No. 1D AMEC CIVIL, LLC,
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Case No. SC10-1699 On Appeal from the First District Court of Appeal LT Case No. 1D09-1211 AMEC CIVIL, LLC, Petitioner, v. STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT FOR THE STATE OF FLORIDA
IN THE SUPREME COURT FOR THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOREST RIVER, INC., v. Petitioner, CASE NO.: SC06-1654 DCA Case No.: 4D05-2656 JOSEPH GELINAS, Respondent. PETITIONER S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION ANDERSONGLENN,
More informationIN THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT
IN THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT ORLANDO LAKE FOREST JOINT VENTURE, a Florida joint venture; ORLANDO LAKE FOREST INC., a Florida corporation; NTS MORTGAGE INCOME FUND, a Delaware corporation; OLF II CORPORATION,
More informationRESPONDENT S ANSWER BRIEF
SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC03-1365 Lower Tribunal No.: 4D02-4510 RESPONDENT S ANSWER BRIEF GARY A. BARCUS Appellant/Petitioner vs. GROVE AT GRAND PALMS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellee/Respondent
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2002
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2002 INTER-ACTIVE SERVICES, INC., Appellant, v. Case No. 5D01-1158 HEATHROW MASTER ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellee. / Opinion
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. vs. L.T. NO.: 3D ON NOTICE TO INVOKE DISCRETIONARY JURISDICTION FROM THE THIRD DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CATHERINE RIGGINS, Petitioner, CASE NO.: SC06-205 vs. L.T. NO.: 3D04-2620 AMERICAN EXPRESS CENTURION BANK, Respondent. / ON NOTICE TO INVOKE DISCRETIONARY JURISDICTION FROM
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC FOREST RIVER, INC. Petitioner/Defendant, vs. JOSEPH GELINAS, Respondent/Plaintiff.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC 06-1654 FOREST RIVER, INC. Petitioner/Defendant, vs. JOSEPH GELINAS, Respondent/Plaintiff. ON REVIEW FROM THE FOURTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL WEST PALM BEACH,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA JOY CHATLOS D ARATA, etc., Petitioner, vs. Case No. SC04-2097 DCA Cases Nos. 5D02-3330 & 5D02-3590 (Consolidated Appeals) THE CHATLOS FOUNDATION, INC., et al. Respondents.
More informationIn the Supreme Court of Florida. CUSTOM SCREENING & CRUSHING INC., and CUSTOM CRUSHING & MATERIAL, INC. Petitioners, vs. GLOBETEC CONSTRUCTION, LLC
In the Supreme Court of Florida CASE NO. SC12-403 CUSTOM SCREENING & CRUSHING INC., and CUSTOM CRUSHING & MATERIAL, INC. Petitioners, vs. GLOBETEC CONSTRUCTION, LLC Respondent. ON PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA SUPREME COURT CASE NO.: SC11-734 THIRD DCA CASE NO. s: 3D09-3102 & 3D10-848 CIRCUIT CASE NO.: 09-25070-CA-01 UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC LOWER COURT NO.: 4D JACK LIEBMAN. Petitioner. vs.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC03-1896 LOWER COURT NO.: 4D00-2883 JACK LIEBMAN Petitioner vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. RESPONDENT'S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION CHARLES J. CRIST,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC DCA CASE NO. 3D THE STATE OF FLORIDA, Petitioner, -vs- MAXIMILIANO ROMERO, Respondent.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC05-1141 DCA CASE NO. 3D03-2169 THE STATE OF FLORIDA, Petitioner, -vs- MAXIMILIANO ROMERO, Respondent. ON PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE DISTRICT COURT
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Case No. SC Third DCA Case Nos. 3D / 3D L.T. Case No CA 15
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Case No. SC08-1877 Third DCA Case Nos. 3D07-2875 / 3D07-3106 L.T. Case No. 04-17958 CA 15 VALAT INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS, LTD. Petitioner, vs. MERRILL LYNCH & CO., INC. Respondent.
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. MIRACLE CENTER ASSOCIATES, etc., Petitioner,
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC05-884 MIRACLE CENTER ASSOCIATES, etc., Petitioner, vs. SCANDINAVIAN HEALTH SPA, INC., etc., Respondent. ON APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. THE STATE OF FLORIDA, Petitioner, vs. JORGE LUIS DOMINGUEZ, Respondent.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. THE STATE OF FLORIDA, Petitioner, vs. JORGE LUIS DOMINGUEZ, Respondent. ON PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD DISTRICT BRIEF
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. vs. L.T. NO.: 3D ON NOTICE TO INVOKE DISCRETIONARY JURISDICTION FROM THE THIRD DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CATHERINE RIGGINS Petitioner, CASE NO.: SC06-205 vs. L.T. NO.: 3D04-2620 AMERICAN EXPRESS CENTURION BANK, Respondent. / ON NOTICE TO INVOKE DISCRETIONARY JURISDICTION FROM
More informationCASE NO.: SC Discretionary Proceedings to Review a Decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal, State of Florida Case No.
THOMAS A. LEAHY, d/b/a ) FAR EAST ACCENTS, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) ) JAMES H. BATMASIAN, etc., ) et al., ) ) Respondents. ) ) IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC07-1528 Discretionary Proceedings
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA BRIEF ON JURISDICTION OF RESPONDENT, EDWARD A. SCHILLING
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA MARIA HERRERA, Petitioner, Case No.: SC07-839 v. EDWARD A. SCHILLING Respondent. BRIEF ON JURISDICTION OF RESPONDENT, EDWARD A. SCHILLING On Discretionary Review from the
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC HARVEY JAY WEINBERG and KENNETH ALAN WEINBERG,
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC 06-1941 BETTY WEINBERG, v. Petitioner, HARVEY JAY WEINBERG and KENNETH ALAN WEINBERG, Respondents. On Petition For Discretionary Review Of A Decision Of The
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA. CASE NO. SC (4 th DCA 4D ) MALCOLM HOSWELL, Petitioner, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC05-1298 (4 th DCA 4D05-1624) MALCOLM HOSWELL, Petitioner, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. RESPONDENT'S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION LAURA FISHER ZIBURA
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC JOY CHATLOS D ARATA, etc., Petitioner, THE CHATLOS FOUNDATION, INC., et al., Respondents.
IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC04-2097 JOY CHATLOS D ARATA, etc., Petitioner, v. THE CHATLOS FOUNDATION, INC., et al., Respondents. BRIEF OF RESPONDENTS ON JURISDICTION ON DISCRETIONARY
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC STATE OF FLORIDA, Petitioner, vs. ERIC S. SMITH, Respondent.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC07-901 STATE OF FLORIDA, Petitioner, vs. ERIC S. SMITH, Respondent. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ON PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA PRO-ART DENTAL LAB, INC. Petitioner, V-STRATEGIC GROUP, LLC. Respondent.
IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC07-1397 PRO-ART DENTAL LAB, INC. Petitioner, v. V-STRATEGIC GROUP, LLC Respondent. RESPONDENT V-STRATEGIC GROUP, LLC S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION ON DISCRETIONARY
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC DCA CASE NO. 3D JAMAR ANTWAN HILL, Petitioner, -vs- THE STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC08-929 DCA CASE NO. 3D06-468 JAMAR ANTWAN HILL, Petitioner, -vs- THE STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. ON PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE DISTRICT COURT
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA DAVID M. POLEN, v. ROSA POLEN, Petitioner, Respondent. / CASE NO. SC06-1226 4 TH DCA CASE NO. 4D06-1002 AMENDED ANSWER BRIEF ON JURISDICTION Respectfully submitted, JOEL
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC. TOWN OF PONCE INLET, Petitioner, PACETTA, LLC, ET AL. Respondents. LOWER CASE NUMBER: 5D
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC TOWN OF PONCE INLET, Petitioner, v. PACETTA, LLC, ET AL. Respondents. LOWER CASE NUMBER: 5D10-1123 On Discretionary Review From The District Court Of Appeal,
More informationFLORIDA SUPREME COURT TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA. CASE No.: SC
FLORIDA SUPREME COURT TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA CASE No.: SC03-2029 CITY OF HALLANDALE, a municipality, Lower Tribunal Case No.: 4D02-3366 (District Court of Appeal of Petitioner, Florida, Fourth District)
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC L.T. CASE NOS. 5D
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC12-1661 L.T. CASE NOS. 5D10-2410 FLORIDA INSURANCE GUARANTY ASSOCIATION, Petitioner, v. WHISTLER'S PARK, INC., a Florida Corporation Respondent. FLORIDA INSURANCE
More informationSUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Case No. SC04- L.T. Case No. 3D CITY OF MIAMI. Petitioner. vs. SIDNEY S. WELLMAN, ET AL.
SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Case No. SC04- L.T. Case No. 3D01-3050 CITY OF MIAMI Petitioner vs. SIDNEY S. WELLMAN, ET AL. Respondents RESPONDENTS ANSWER BRIEF TO PETITIONER S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION ON DISCRETIONARY
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC04-442 Lower Tribunal No.: 4D02-101 JOHN RHAMES, DAN MATHIS, and ROBERT MARTO, vs. Petitioners, CITY OF LAUDERHILL, FLORIDA, a Municipality, Respondent. / On
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL THIRD DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL THIRD DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA RECEIVED, 12/21/2016 10:21 AM, Mary Cay Blanks, Third District Court of Appeal SOLO AERO CORP., a Florida corporation, vs. Petitioner, AMERICA-CV
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. v. CASE NO. SC ON DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
Electronically Filed 05/17/2013 11:04:14 AM ET RECEIVED, 5/17/2013 11:08:35, Thomas D. Hall, Clerk, Supreme Court IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA MARK ERIC OSTERBACK, Petitioner, v. CASE NO. SC13-812 STATE
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Case No. SC04-648
Case No. SC04-579 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA DAVID SIEGEL, individually & WESTGATE RESORTS, LTD., a Florida limited partnership, through its general partner, WESTGATE RESORTS, INC., a Florida corporation,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC JOSE VALDES and JUANA VALDES, his wife, Petitioners, vs.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC06-971 JOSE VALDES and JUANA VALDES, his wife, Petitioners, vs. GAB ROBINS NORTH AMERICA, INC., SOUTHERN UNDERWRITERS, INC., CAPITAL ASSURANCE SERVICES, INC.,
More informationSupreme Court of Florida
Supreme Court of Florida PER CURIAM. No. SC11-697 ROMAN PINO, Petitioner, vs. THE BANK OF NEW YORK, etc., et al., Respondents. [December 8, 2011] The issue we address is whether Florida Rule of Appellate
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Case No. SC BEST DIVERSIFIED, INC. and PETER HUFF. Petitioners, vs.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Case No. SC06-1823 BEST DIVERSIFIED, INC. and PETER HUFF Petitioners, vs. OSCEOLA COUNTY, FLORIDA and STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, Respondents.
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CARLOS VALDES v. Petitioner, SC Case: SC04-199 First DCA Case: 1D02-4026 INTEGRATED ADMINISTRATORS and WAL-MART STORE #6020, Respondent. / On discretionary review from the
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA MICHAEL M. ROMAN, STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT'S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC08-905 MICHAEL M. ROMAN, Petitioner, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. RESPONDENT'S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION BILL MCCOLLUM Attorney General Tallahassee,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC ANDREW MCKEE, Petitioner, vs. JURISDICTIONAL ANSWER BRIEF TOWER HILL SELECT INSURANCE COMPANY
Filing # 22727607 E-Filed 01/20/2015 12:24:06 PM IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC14-2299 ANDREW MCKEE, Petitioner, vs. TOWER HILL SELECT INSURANCE COMPANY, RECEIVED, 01/20/2015 12:28:38 PM,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA. CASE NO. SC08- Fourth District Court of Appeal Case No. 4D JAN DANZIGER, Petitioner,
IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC08- Fourth District Court of Appeal Case No. 4D06-5070 JAN DANZIGER, Petitioner, v. ALTERNATIVE LEGAL, INC., Respondent. ON DISCRETIONARY REVIEW OF A DECISION
More informationCASE NO. SC CORAL REEF DRIVE LAND DEVELOPMENT, LLC, etc. et al., DUKE REALTY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a foreign limited partnership,
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC10-2367 CORAL REEF DRIVE LAND DEVELOPMENT, LLC, etc. et al., vs. Petitioners, DUKE REALTY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a foreign limited partnership, Respondent. On a
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA. CASE NO. (4th DCA Case No. 4D ) STATE OF FLORIDA, Petitioner, vs. JESSIE HILL, Respondent.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO. (4th DCA Case No. 4D02-3362) STATE OF FLORIDA, Petitioner, vs. JESSIE HILL, Respondent. PETITIONER'S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION CHARLES J. CRIST JR., Attorney
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA BERNARD DOUGHERTY Petitioner, v. Case No. SC12-2365 5th DCA No. 5D10-2755 STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. ON DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE FIFTH DISTRICT COURT
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. CASE No. 4DCA No. 4D LOREEN I. KREIZINGER, P.A., a Florida Professional Association, Petitioner,
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE No. 4DCA No. 4D04-2919 LOREEN I. KREIZINGER, P.A., a Florida Professional Association, Petitioner, v. SHELDON J. SCHLESINGER, P.A., a Florida Professional Association,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. OCEAN REEF CLUB, INC., a Florida corporation, CHERRYE WILCZEWSKI and LAURA LEON,
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC12-2450 S OCEAN REEF CLUB, INC., a Florida corporation, Petitioner, v. CHERRYE WILCZEWSKI and LAURA LEON, Respondents. RESPONDENTS' BRIEF ON JURISDICTION By:
More informationSUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA RESPONDENT S JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF
Filing # 8803708 Electronically Filed 01/03/2014 05:25:42 PM RECEIVED, 1/3/2014 17:28:35, John A. Tomasino, Clerk, Supreme Court SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA ANHEUSER-BUSCH COMPANIES, INC. and ANHEUSER-BUSCH,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA. CASE NO. SC: 4 th DCA CASE NO: 4D STATE OF FLORIDA, Petitioner, vs. SALVATORE BENNETT,
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC: 4 th DCA CASE NO: 4D04-4825 STATE OF FLORIDA, Petitioner, vs. SALVATORE BENNETT, Respondent. PETITIONER'S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION CHARLES J. CRIST,
More informationSUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC
SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC11-2146 MARILYN ANN NUNES, Personal Representative of the Estate of KATHLEEN L. PHILLIPS and MARILYN ANN NUNES, individually Petitioners vs. ALLSTATE INVESTMENT PROPERTIES,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Petitioner, DCA CASE No. 5D v. CASE NO. SC ON DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA SAUL CARMONA, Petitioner, DCA CASE No. 5D03-229 v. CASE NO. SC STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. / ON DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL JURISDICTIONAL
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA RESPONDENT S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION
IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA ROBERT J. CROUCH, Petitioner, v. CASE NO.: SC 08 2164 THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. / RESPONDENT S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION Harold R. Mardenborough,
More informationCASE NO. SC10- L.T. No. 3D GLK, L.P., a Washington limited partnership, and EMANUEL ORGANEK,
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC10- L.T. No. 3D09-591 GLK, L.P., a Washington limited partnership, and EMANUEL ORGANEK, vs. Petitioners, FOUR SEASONS HOTELS LIMITED, a Canadian corporation,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. DALE JOHNSON, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) vs. ) CASE NO. SC ) (4DCA ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Respondent.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA DALE JOHNSON, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) vs. ) CASE NO. SC ) (4DCA 05-1585) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Respondent. ) ) PETITIONER=S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION On Review from the District
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA STERLING R. LANIER, JR. v. Petitioner, Case No. SC08-19 STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. / AMENDED JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF OF RESPONDENT BILL MCCOLLUM ATTORNEY GENERAL TRISHA
More informationSUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC LOWER TRIBUNAL CASE NO. 3D
SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA SPENCER MCGUINNESS, Petitioner, v. PROSPECT ARAGON, LLC, Respondent. RESPONDENT S REPLY BRIEF LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN K. GOODKIND Brian K. Goodkind Fla. Bar No.: 347795 4121 La Playa
More informationNO SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA WALTER WEISENBERG. Petitioner, vs. COSTA CROCIERE, S.p.A. Respondent.
NO. 10-1256 SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA WALTER WEISENBERG Petitioner, vs. COSTA CROCIERE, S.p.A. Respondent. On Appeal From the Third District Court of Appeal LT Case No(s): 3D07-555; 04-23514 PETITIONER
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL THIRD DISTRICT OF FLORIDA. Case No. SC R.H., G.W., T.L., juveniles, Petitioners, vs.
Electronically Filed 03/14/2013 02:35:25 PM ET RECEIVED, 3/14/2013 14:38:34, Thomas D. Hall, Clerk, Supreme Court IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL THIRD DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. SC13-326 R.H., G.W.,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA PERRY TANKSLEY, Petitioner, vs. 214 MAIN STREET CORP. and 3B REALTY NORTH, INC., Sup. Ct. Case No: SC07-272 Second DCA Case No: 2D06-768 Respondents. *********************************/
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC CLEO LECROY, Petitioner, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC 07-1021 CLEO LECROY, Petitioner, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. RESPONDENT'S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION BILL MCCOLLUM Attorney General Tallahassee,
More informationSUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA JAMES LEVOY WATERS, Petitioner, SHERIFF, ESCAMBIA COUNTY FLORIDA, Respondent. CASE NO. SC
Electronically Filed 08/26/2013 04:20:02 PM ET RECEIVED, 8/26/2013 16:23:40, Thomas D. Hall, Clerk, Supreme Court SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA JAMES LEVOY WATERS, Petitioner, v. SHERIFF, ESCAMBIA COUNTY FLORIDA,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. v. Case No. SC LCN: 4D STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT'S AMENDED BRIEF ON JURISDICTION
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA WILLIE FRANK DAVIS, Petitioner, v. Case No. SC09-192 LCN: 4D08-4272 STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. RESPONDENT'S AMENDED BRIEF ON JURISDICTION BILL MCCOLLUM ATTORNEY GENERAL
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC CHRISTINE BAUER and THOMAS BAUER, Petitioners, ONE WEST BANK, FSB, Respondent.
Filing # 17071819 Electronically Filed 08/13/2014 05:11:43 PM RECEIVED, 8/13/2014 17:13:41, John A. Tomasino, Clerk, Supreme Court IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC14-1575 CHRISTINE BAUER and
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA DIGICAST NEW MEDIA, INC., Petitioner, -vs- FIERA.COM, INC., Respondent. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SCO3-418 THIRD DISTRICT CASE NO. 3D02-441 LOWER TRIBUNAL NO. 01-24419 CA 22 DIGICAST NEW MEDIA, INC., Petitioner, -vs- FIERA.COM, INC., Respondent. APPEAL FROM
More informationIN Tl le SUPREME COURT FOR THE STATE OF FLORIDA. CASE NO. SCl3-153 L. T. CASR NOS.; 4DI J-4801, CA COCE
E]cctronically Filed 07/01/2013 (M:47:23 PM ET RECEIVED. 7/]/2013 l6:48:35. Thomas D. Hall. Clerk. Supreme Court IN Tl le SUPREME COURT FOR THE STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SCl3-153 L. T. CASR NOS.; 4DI J-4801,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC LOWER TRIBUNAL CASE NO.: 3D BOCA INVESTORS GROUP, INC. Petitioner, vs. IRWIN POTASH et al.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC03-351 LOWER TRIBUNAL CASE NO.: 3D01-2587 BOCA INVESTORS GROUP, INC. Petitioner, vs. IRWIN POTASH et al., Respondents. On Discretionary Conflict Review of a
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. CONSTRUCTION INC., a Florida corporation, L.T. No. 4D07-391
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA PADULA & WADSWORTH CASE NO. SC08-1558 CONSTRUCTION INC., a Florida corporation, L.T. No. 4D07-391 Petitioner, v. PORT-A-WELD, INC., a Florida corporation, Respondent. ON
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. v. CASE NO. SC04-58 ON DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA ROBERT DEREK LEWIS, Petitioner, v. CASE NO. SC04-58 STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. / ON DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC07-1672 PETER SPOREA, ET AL., Petitioners, vs. CITY OF POMPANO BEACH, FLORIDA, Respondent. RESPONDENT S AMENDED ANSWER BRIEF ON JURISDICTION On Appeal from the
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO: LT CASE NO: 3D WALTER WIESENBERG. Petitioner. vs. COSTA CROCIERE S.p.A. Respondent.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO: 10-1256 LT CASE NO: 3D07-555 WALTER WIESENBERG Petitioner vs. COSTA CROCIERE S.p.A. Respondent. On petition for review from the Third District Court of Appeal RESPONDENT
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA Case Number: SC RESPONDENT S JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA Case Number: SC09-1722 Westgate Tabernacle Petitioners, vs. 4 th DCA CASE No. 4D07-3792 PALM BEACH COUNTY, Respondent. RESPONDENT S JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF Robert
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. DAPHNE ELAINE HENSON, Florida Second District Court of Appeal Case Appellee. Number: 2D /
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA DOUGLAS LEE HENSON Appellant, Case Nos. SC06-1003 v. DAPHNE ELAINE HENSON, Florida Second District Court of Appeal Case Appellee. Number: 2D06-826 / APPELLEE'S BRIEF ON
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Third District Court of Appeal Case No. 3D09-1314 Lower Court Case No. 08-39632 CA 04 (11 th Judicial Circuit) VENEZIA LAKES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., a Florida not-for-profit
More informationThird District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed January 23, 2019. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D18-297 Lower Tribunal No. 14-455 Camille Lee, etc.,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Case No. SC08-
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Case No. SC08- On Petition for Discretionary Review of A Decision of the Fifth District Court of Appeal, Fifth District Case Nos. 5D05-3338, 5D05-3339, 5D05-3340, 5D05-3341
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC ALVIN LEWIS, Petitioner. vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondents. PETITIONER'S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC05-1605 ALVIN LEWIS, Petitioner vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondents. PETITIONER'S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION Seeking Discretionary Review from the District Court of
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Case No. SC06-56 BEVERLY PENZELL AND BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Petitioners, vs.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Case No. SC06-56 BEVERLY PENZELL AND BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Petitioners, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, Respondent. RESPONDENT S ANSWER BRIEF
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC03-345
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC03-345 K&M SHIPPING, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, CARIBBEAN BARGE LINE, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND SAMIR MOURRA, vs. Petitioners, SEDEN PENEL, MONA LOUIS,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. THIRD DCA CASE NO.: 3D Respondent. /
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. THIRD DCA CASE NO.: 3D10-1422 ANA MARIA AGUILAR-FERNANDEZ, vs. Petitioner, UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent. / PETITIONER=S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION
More informationCASE NO. SC07- MARIA HERRERA, PETITIONER, RESPONDENT.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC07- MARIA HERRERA, PETITIONER, VS. EDWARD A. SCHILLING, RESPONDENT. BRIEF ON JURISDICTION OF PETITIONER MARIA HERRERA ON DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE THIRD DISTRICT
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA AMERICA ONLINE, INC., : : Petitioner : : v. : Case No. : ROBERT PASIEKA, on behalf : L.T. Case No: 1D03-2290 of himself and all others : similarly situated,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA PETITIONER'S JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 9. L.T. Case No.: 4D12-1313 2 NAHOMI ORTIZ Petitioner v. ANAKARLI BOUTIQUE, INC., Respondent, PETITIONER'S JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF On Review from the District Court
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 August 5, 2009. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D08-1698 Lower Tribunal No. 06-153
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Case No. SC L.C. Case No. 4D
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Case No. SC12-1525 L.C. Case No. 4D10-4333 BARBARA TURCOTTE and MELVIN TURCOTTE, v. Petitioners, CITY OF COCONUT CREEK, and SEMINOLE PROPERTIES II, INC., Respondents. JURISDICTIONAL
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA CITY OF KEY WEST, vs. Defendant/Petitioner Case No. SC12-898 FLORIDA KEYS COMMUNITY COLLEGE, Plaintiff/Respondent. JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF OF RESPONDENT, FLORIDA
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Petitioner, S.C. Case No. SC DCA Case No. 3D v. L.T. Case No. 08-CA-45992
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA ANGELO KYRELIS, Petitioner, S.C. Case No. SC12-642 DCA Case No. 3D11-1730 v. L.T. Case No. 08-CA-45992 ONEWEST BANK, FSB (SUBSTITUTED PARTY FOR FORMER PLAINTIFF INDYMAC
More informationThird District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed February 27, 2019. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D16-2746 Lower Tribunal No. 09-76467 Luis Tejera,
More informationCASE NO. SC L.T. CASE NO. 4D IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CATHERINE STANEK-COUSINS, Petitioner, STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent.
CASE NO. SC05-1987 L.T. CASE NO. 4D05-1129 ========================================================== IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CATHERINE STANEK-COUSINS, Petitioner, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent.
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. v. CASE NO. SC DCA CASE NO. 5D EPISCOPAL DIOCESE OF CENTRAL FLORIDA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA PRUDENTIAL SECURITIES INC., n/k/a/ PRUDENTIAL EQUITY GROUP, LLC and WILLIAM J. BREWSTER, JR. Defendants/Petitioners, v. CASE NO. SC06-935 DCA CASE NO. 5D05-248 EPISCOPAL
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC MIRACLE CENTER ASSOCIATES, Petitioner, vs. SCANDINAVIAN HEALTH SPA, INC. et al. Respondent.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC05-884 MIRACLE CENTER ASSOCIATES, Petitioner, vs. SCANDINAVIAN HEALTH SPA, INC. et al Respondent. ON APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, THIRD
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA QUIETWATER ENTERTAINMENT, INC., ) FRED SIMMONS, MICHAEL A. GUERRA ) JUNE B. GUERRA, WAS, INC., and ) SANDPIPER-GULF AIRE INN, INC., ) ) Petitioners, ) CASE NO. SC05-215
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA ON PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM A DECISION OF THE SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL, STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO.
LARSON & LARSON, P.A., HERBERT W. LARSON, and H. WILLIAM LARSON, JR., IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Defendants/Petitioners, -vs- Sup. Ct. Case No. SC08-428 TSE INDUSTRIES, INC., Respondent. / ON PETITION
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL THIRD DISTRICT CASE NO.: 3D LT. CASE NO.: CA-13
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL THIRD DISTRICT RECEIVED, 10/26/2016 3:44 PM, Mary Cay Blanks, Third District Court of Appeal SFL PROPERTY HOLDING LLC, v. Appellant, DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. v. Lower Tribunal No. 2D ON PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY JURISDICTION BASED ON ALLEGED CONFLICT OF DECISIONS
Electronically Filed 07/31/2013 04:44:07 PM ET RECEIVED, 7/31/2013 16:48:32, Thomas D. Hall, Clerk, Supreme Court IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA ROBERT VON GOETZMAN Petitioner/Pro Se SC No. 13-9999 v.
More informationFLORIDA SUPREME COURT. Case No.: SC nd DCA Case No.: 2D Lower Tribunal Case No.: G Hillsborough County, Florida Circuit Court
FLORIDA SUPREME COURT MICHAEL F. SHEEHAN, M.D., Petitioner, vs. SCOTT SWEET, Respondent. / Case No.: SC06-1373 2nd DCA Case No.: 2D04-2744 Lower Tribunal Case No.: 03-5936G Hillsborough County, Florida
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC LOWER TRIBUNAL CASE NO.: 4D
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC06-2349 LOWER TRIBUNAL CASE NO.: 4D05-3911 THOMAS D. LARDIN, P.A., a Florida Professional Association and THOMAS D. LARDIN, ESQUIRE, Defendant/Petitioners, v.
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC12- DEMARIOUS CALDWELL, Petitioner, - versus - STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC12- DEMARIOUS CALDWELL, Petitioner, - versus - STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. ON APPEAL FROM THE FOURTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL CASE NO. 4D10-3345 RESPONDENT
More informationSUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA CASE NO.:
MARIA CEVALLOS, SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA CASE NO.: 4th District Case No: 4D08-3042 v. Petitioner, KERI ANN RIDEOUT and LINDA RIDEOUT, Respondents. / PETITIONER S JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Case No. SC Fifth DCA Case No. 5D th Judicial Circuit Case No. 06-CA-1003 and 06-CA-8702
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Case No. SC10-1892 Fifth DCA Case No. 5D09-1761 9 th Judicial Circuit Case No. 06-CA-1003 and 06-CA-8702 Upon Petition for Discretionary Jurisdiction Review Of A Decision
More information