IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. CASE NO. SC Third DCA Case No. 3D PETITIONER, JAMES L. BERRY'S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION
|
|
- Arline Day
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 JAMES L. BERRY, IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA vs. Petitioner, TERRY PLUMBING & HOME SERVICES, INC., CASE NO. SC Third DCA Case No. 3D Respondent. / PETITIONER, JAMES L. BERRY'S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION On Review from the District Court of Appeal, Third District State of Florida DAVID L. DEEHL Florida Bar No MICHELE K. FEINZIG, Of Counsel Florida Bar DEEHL & CARLSON, P.A. Attorneys for Petitioner JAMES L. BERRY 2600 Douglas Road, Suite PH-7 Coral Gables, Florida Telephone: (305) Telecopier: (305)
2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page(s) TABLE OF CITATIONS... i STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS... 1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT... 3 ARGUMENT... 4 THE DECISION OF THE THIRD DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL IN THIS CASE EXPRESSLY AND DIRECTLY CONFLICTS WITH THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN Brown v. Estate of Stuckey, 749 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 1999). STATEMENT OF REASONS WHY REVIEW SHOULD BE GRANTED... 8 CONCLUSION... 9 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH FONT REQUIREMENT. 10
3 TABLE OF CITATIONS Page(s) Alaqua Lakes Realty, Inc. v. Burch, 790 So. 2d 604, 608 (Fla. 5 th DCA 2001)... 6, 8, 9-10 Aurbach v. Gallina, 721 So. 2d 756, 758 (Fla. 4 th DCA 1998), approved, 753 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 2000)... 6 Brown v. Estate of Stuckey, 749 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 1999)... 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 Ford Motor Co. v. Kikis, 401 So. 2d 1341, 1342 (Fla. 1981)... 8 Knowles v. State, 848 So. 2d 1055, 1056 (Fla. 2003)... 8 McCown v. Estate of Seidell, 831 So. 2d 218, 220 (Fla. 5 th DCA 2002)... 7, 8 Republic Servs. of Fla., L.P. v. Poucher, 851 So. 2d 866, 871 (Fla. 1 st DCA 2003)... 9 Robertson v. State, 829 So. 2d 901, 904 (Fla. 2002)... 8 Trujillo v. Uniroyal Tire Co., 753 So. 2d 1256, 1257, n. 1 (Fla. 2000).. 6, 7, 8 OTHER AUTHORITIES Art. V, ' 3(b)(3) Fla. Const. (1980)... 8 Fla. R. App. P (a)(2)(A)(iv)... 8 i DEEHL & CARLSON, P.A., SUITE PH-7 DOUGLAS CENTRE, 2600 DOUGLAS ROAD, CORAL GABLES, FL TEL. (305)
4 STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS 1 Petitioner/Plaintiff JIM BERRY seeks review of a decision of the Third District Court of Appeal which, inter alia, reversed an additur award granted by the trial court in his favor, increasing his future pain and suffering damages by $125,000, from $25,000 to $150,000. (A. 1, pp. 3-4, 9) JIM BERRY, a South Florida television sportscaster, had his face and mouth ripped apart by a dog belonging to TERRY PLUMBING s employee, William Blackford, while Blackford was making a service call at BERRY s home. (A. 1, p. 2). JIM BERRY sought compensation for his severe and traumatic injuries in this action against TERRY PLUMBING. (A. 1, p. 2). The jury found that TERRY PLUMBING, in violation of its own stated policy, negligently allowed an aggressive dog, which had already bitten and/or acted aggressively to two other people and was known to have dangerous propensities, to accompany Blackford, its plumber, on a service call to JIM BERRY s home, without taking measures to protect the safety of customers like BERRY. (A. 1, p. 2). The verdict in favor of JIM BERRY assessed TERRY PLUMBING as 70% negligent and BERRY 30% comparatively negligent, and awarded past medicals of $7,637.10, future medicals of $20,000, past pain and suffering of $50,000 and 1 Petitioner JAMES L. BERRY will be referred to in this Brief as JIM BERRY. Respondent TERRY PLUMBING & HOME SERVICES, INC. will be referred to as TERRY PLUMBING. References to A. are to the Appendix to this Brief. 1
5 future pain and suffering of $0. (A. 1, pp. 3, 6). The verdict was resubmitted for further deliberation, though, after which the jury came back with a new award of $25,000 for future pain and suffering. (A. 1, pp. 3, 6-7). After a post-trial hearing, additur of $125,000 was granted to BERRY s future pain and suffering damages, increasing that award to $150,000. (A. 1, pp. 3-4, 7). TERRY PLUMBING filed an appeal challenging, inter alia, the trial court s grant of additur to the future intangible damages award. (A. 1, pp. 1-2). The Third District Court of Appeal s opinion improperly focused on the quantum of evidence before the jury, holding [i]n light of the evidence presented and the Record before us, we conclude that the jury could have reached its verdict in a manner consistent with the evidence presented. (A. 1, pp. 7-9). The Third District therefore reversed the additur of $125,000 and remanded with directions that judgment be entered consistent with the jury verdict (which had awarded $25,000 for future pain and suffering). (A. 1, p. 11). JIM BERRY sought rehearing, rehearing en banc or certification, but his motion was denied on May 4, (A. 2). JIM BERRY's Notice to Invoke the Discretionary Jurisdiction of this Court was then timely filed on June 3,
6 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT The Third District Court of Appeal failed to follow established law, totally disregarding the standard of review of decisions granting additur. The Third District should have reviewed the decision of the trial court in terms of whether the trial court s discretion to enter additur was proper. Erroneously, the appeals court determined whether the original jury verdict, not enhanced by additur, was supported by the evidence. The decision of the District Court simply cannot be reconciled with Brown v. Estate of Stuckey, 749 So. 2d 490, (Fla. 1999), where this Court held the abuse of discretion standard (which governs decisions granting additur) requires the appellate court to apply the reasonableness test to determine whether the trial judge committed an abuse of discretion. If reasonable persons could differ as to the propriety of the action taken by the trial court in increasing an inadequate award, there can be no finding of an abuse of discretion. As explained in Brown, the existence of substantial, competent evidence in the record to support the jury verdict does not demonstrate that the trial judge abused his discretion. In reviewing the trial court s grant of additur, the Third District merely examined the evidence, and finding there was evidence to support the jury s verdict, concluded the jury could have reached its verdict in a manner consistent with the evidence presented. The Third District never looked at the grant of 3
7 additur from the trial court s perspective, as opposed to that of the jury, and never determined whether the trial judge s decision to grant additur was an abuse of discretion (whether reasonable persons could have decided as the trial judge did). The Third District expressly failed to determine whether the trial judge abused his discretion in granting additur, as mandated by Brown. As the Third District s decision directly applies a standard of review rejected by this Court (whether substantial competent evidence supported the jury verdict), and fails to apply the correct standard as dictated by Brown, the decision expressly and directly conflicts with Brown, as well as other like decisions of this Court and other District Courts of Appeal. ARGUMENT THE DECISION OF THE THIRD DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL IN THIS CASE EXPRESSLY AND DIRECTLY CONFLICTS WITH THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN Brown v. Estate of Stuckey, 749 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 1999). Though correctly recognizing that trial judges have broad discretion in ruling on additur motions, which are reviewed for abuse of discretion (A. 1, p. 7), the Third District failed to apply that very standard in reviewing the grant of additur for JIM BERRY. In the instant case, the Third District looked at the criteria to be considered by trial courts in determining whether additur is appropriate, and against that backdrop reviewed evidence pertaining to JIM 4
8 BERRY s future pain and suffering. 2 (A. 1, p. 8). The court then stated we see no error in the jury s award of $25,000 and concluded [i]n light of the evidence presented and the Record that the jury could have reached its verdict in a manner consistent with the evidence presented. (A. 1, p. 9) (emphasis added). The Third District thus analyzed the propriety of the additur award for JIM BERRY by determining whether the evidence supported the jury award of $25,000 for future pain and suffering, effectively applying the substantial competent evidence standard. 3 In so doing, the Third District misapplied the standard of review for additur awards, by improperly focusing on what the jury did, as opposed to whether the trial judge could, in his discretion, grant additur. 2 The Third District recited (without considering all the evidence, such as evidence of emotional pain and suffering) some argumentative testimony (A. 1, p. 8). that Berry is not currently experiencing any pain; that Berry was back to work; that Berry s speech appears to be fine; that Berry may consider additional surgeries and that, although the surgeries are not necessary, they should be considered; that Berry experiences some numbness; and that his disability is cosmetic, not functional. 3 TERRY PLUMBING had argued to the Third District an incorrect standard of review that the standard should be de novo, and that the additur should be reversed because there was competent evidence to support the jury s award. It is possible that this argument misled the Third District to follow the second of these suggestions in deciding whether the additur was proper by simply determining whether there was evidence in the record to support the jury s award. 5
9 Florida law does not permit the reversal of additur just because there was evidence in the record to support the jury s verdict, but rather, requires a clear abuse of discretion. Aurbach v. Gallina, 721 So. 2d 756, 758 (Fla. 4 th DCA 1998), approved, 753 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 2000). The fact that there may be substantial, competent evidence in the record to support a jury verdict does not necessarily demonstrate that the trial judge abused his discretion in rejecting that verdict. Brown v. Estate of Stuckey, 749 So. 2d 490, (Fla. 1999). In a case decided several months after Brown, this Court noted that the standard of review discussed in Brown (in relation to new trial orders) also applies to the review of additur orders. Trujillo v. Uniroyal Tire Co., 753 So. 2d 1256, 1257, n. 1 (Fla. 2000). Thus, in reviewing additur orders, appellate courts must recognize the broad discretionary authority of the trial court and apply the reasonableness test to determine whether there was an abuse of discretion in granting additur. Brown, 749 So. 2d at If reasonable persons could differ as to the propriety of the trial judge s action, there can be no finding of an abuse of discretion and the trial court must affirm, even if there was substantial, competent evidence in the record to support the jury verdict. Id. at 498. See also Alaqua Lakes Realty, Inc. v. Burch, 790 So. 2d 604, 608 (Fla. 5 th DCA 2001) (where the appellant, in opposing additur, argued that the verdict was fully supported by the evidence and was, and could be, adduced in a logical manner by 6
10 reasonable persons, but where the appellate court found this argument to be without merit because Brown [Brown v. Estate of Stuckey, supra] specifically rejected the notion that a trial court abuses its discretion in ordering a new trial solely because there is substantial, competent evidence in the record to support the verdict ). What the Third District should have done here, as required by the law of this Court, is to determine whether reasonable persons could differ as to the propriety of the trial judge s decision to grant additur. If reasonable persons could differ, and reasonable persons could agree with the grant of additur, there can be no finding of an abuse of discretion. Trujillo, supra; Brown, supra. See also McCown v. Estate of Seidell, 831 So. 2d 218, 220 (Fla. 5 th DCA 2002) (finding that if reasonable men could conclude that the evidence required additur as to future damages, then the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting additur). Appellate courts must thus review the reasonableness of the trial court s decision in order to determine if there was an abuse of discretion not review whether there was evidence that could possibly be viewed to support the jury s verdict before additur, as the Third District did here. The Third District s decision in this case effectively holds that the standard of review is whether the jury s decision was reasonable in other words, whether the jury could have reached its verdict in a manner consistent with the evidence 7
11 presented (A. 1, p. 9). The decision is directly contrary to established case law holding that broad discretion must be afforded to the trial judge in ruling on a motion for additur, and that appellate courts must apply the reasonableness test to determine whether the trial court s grant of additur was reasonable (as opposed to whether the jury s original award of damages was reasonable). See, e.g. Brown, supra; Trujillo, supra; McCown, supra; Alaqua Lakes Realty, supra. The Third District s decision runs contrary to the broad discretion afforded trial courts under the additur statute, as well as the law prescribing the standard of review of additur awards, giving this Court jurisdiction to resolve the conflict. Fla. R. App. P (a)(2)(A)(iv); Art. V, ' 3(b)(3) Fla. Const. (1980). STATEMENT OF REASONS WHY REVIEW SHOULD BE GRANTED This Court should grant review in order to clear up the confusion created by conflicting precedents (the Third District s decision in the instant case versus Brown and like cases). 4 The standard of review is the first matter of law 4 This Court has found conflict where a District Court misapplied Supreme Court precedent. See, e.g., Robertson v. State, 829 So. 2d 901, 904 (Fla. 2002); Knowles v. State, 848 So. 2d 1055, 1056 (Fla. 2003). The misapplication of binding precedent creates conflict with the precedent itself. That is precisely what has occurred here, where the Third District misapplied (actually failed to apply) Supreme Court precedent concerning the proper standard of review of orders granting additur, creating case law that conflicts with that binding precedent. Alternatively, conflict exists because the Third District adopted a standard (substantial competent evidence) in direct conflict with binding precedent. See Ford Motor Co. v. Kikis, 401 So. 2d 1341, 1342 (Fla. 1981) (noting that a discussion of the legal principles applied by the appellate court can provide a 8
12 considered by an appellate court in reviewing any decision, including one concerning additur, and the abuse of discretion standard applies in many cases not just those involving a grant of additur. Courts looking at the decision of the Third District as guidance will see the substantial competent evidence standard used, despite the fact that this Court has made it clear that the reasonableness standard applies in determining whether a decision (like one involving additur) involves an abuse of discretion. Courts have long grappled (and continue to grapple) with application of the abuse of discretion standard, and the Third District s decision here only injects more confusion into the area. See, e.g., Republic Servs. of Fla., L.P. v. Poucher, 851 So. 2d 866, 871 (Fla. 1 st DCA 2003) (seemingly applying the substantial competent evidence standard to the review of an additur order despite recognizing that the proper standard is abuse of discretion). This Court should take jurisdiction and clarify application of the abuse of discretion standard. CONCLUSION This Court has discretionary jurisdiction to review the decision below, because it expressly and directly conflicts with a previous decision of this Court (Brown, supra), as well as decisions of other District Courts (e.g., Alaqua Lakes sufficient basis for conflict review, because it is not necessary to identify a specifically conflicting decision in order to have an express conflict). 9
13 Realty, supra). The Court should exercise that jurisdiction to consider the merits of JIM BERRY's argument and decide the important issue presented by this case. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that the foregoing was served by U.S. Mail on this day of June, 2005 to Mitchell L. Lundeen, Esq./Charles M-P George, Esq., George, Hartz, Lundeen, Fulmer, Johnstone, King & Stevens, P.A., 4800 Le Jeune Road, Coral Gables, FL DEEHL & CARLSON, P.A. Attorneys for Petitioner JAMES L. BERRY 2600 Douglas Road, Suite PH-7 Coral Gables, Florida Telephone: (305) Telecopier: (305) By: DAVID L. DEEHL Florida Bar No MICHELE K. FEINZIG, Of Counsel Florida Bar No CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH FONT REQUIREMENT I HEREBY CERTIFY that this brief is in Times New Roman 14-point font, and complies with the font requirements of Fla. R. App. P By: DAVID L. DEEHL JURISDICTION BRIEF 10
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC AIG URUGUAY COMPANIA DE SEGUROS, S.A. Plaintiff/Appellant, -versus- LANDAIR TRANSPORT, et al.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC05-1243 AIG URUGUAY COMPANIA DE SEGUROS, S.A. Plaintiff/Appellant, -versus- LANDAIR TRANSPORT, et al., Defendant/Appellee, ON APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF
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. 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 informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC EAST COAST ENTERTAINMENT, INC., d/b/a THE VOODOO LOUNGE., Petitioner, vs.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC07-764 EAST COAST ENTERTAINMENT, INC., d/b/a THE VOODOO LOUNGE., Petitioner, vs. JENNIFER BORDA, Respondent. ON PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE DISTRICT
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. 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
Filing # 20901853 Electronically Filed 11/24/2014 11:24:13 AM RECEIVED, 11/24/2014 11:28:44, John A. Tomasino, Clerk, Supreme Court In the Supreme Court of Florida CASE NO. SC14-2248 LOWER TRIBUNAL CASE
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA. Case No. SC BETTY JEAN MANN, Petitioner,
IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA Case No. SC02-2646 BETTY JEAN MANN, Petitioner, v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA and ORANGE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS Respondents. PETITIONER
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA BASSAM ABIFARAJ and RAYYA ABIFARAJ, on behalf of and as parents and natural guardians of SAMER ABIFARAJ, a deceased minor, vs. Petitioners, SC05-1595 L.T. Case No.: 1D03-4344
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Lower Tribunal No.: 4D RESPONDENT S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION. On Review from the District Court
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CADLEROCK JOINT VENTURE, L.P., ETC., Petitioner, CASE NO.: SC08-1133 Lower Tribunal No.: 4D07-2594 vs. LESLIE WILLIAMS, Respondent. / RESPONDENT S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION
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 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 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 FLORIDA SUPREME COURT
A-49949-9/ALM IN THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT PETITION TO REVIEW DECISION FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA 4 TH DCA Appeal No. 4D05-1598 DAMIEN PENDERGRASS, etc. et al
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. SC LOWER TRIBUNAL NO. DCA: 3D AUNDRA JOHNSON, Petitioner, -vs- THE STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC09-966 LOWER TRIBUNAL NO. DCA: 3D07-2145 AUNDRA JOHNSON, Petitioner, -vs- THE STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. ON PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE DISTRICT
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 informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA JUNIOR JOSEPH, ) ) Appellee/Petitioner, ) ) 5th DCA Case No. 5D09-1356 ) ) Supreme Court Case No. SC11-179 STATE OF FLORIDA,) ) Appellant/Respondent. ) ) APPEAL
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. 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 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 informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Petitioner, v. Case No. SC RINKER MATERIALS CORP., L.T. No. 3D10-488
THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA JOAN RUBLE, Petitioner, v. Case No. SC11-1173 RINKER MATERIALS CORP., L.T. No. 3D10-488 Respondent. / ON REVIEW FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL THIRD DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA
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
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC11-352 THE VILLAS DEL VERDE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., Petitioner, vs. CLARK H. SCHERER, III, Respondent. ON DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE SECOND DISTRICT
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC INTERNATIONAL UNION OF POLICE ASSOCIATIONS, Petitioner, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC06-1148 INTERNATIONAL UNION OF POLICE ASSOCIATIONS, Petitioner, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. On Petition for Discretionary Review of the Opinion of the First
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 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 informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA SUPREME COURT CASE NO. SC TH DCA CASE NO. 4D
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA SUPREME COURT CASE NO. SC-11-1477 4 TH DCA CASE NO. 4D08-4729 BRIAN HOOKS, ) Petitioner, ) vs. ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) Respondent. ) ) PETITIONER S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION
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 informationSTATE OF FLORIDA, Petitioner.
JOHN SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA s. 7 0 TODD HOWARD, Appellee, By V. Case No.: 4D14-2439 L.T. No.: 89-4684CF10A STATE OF FLORIDA, Petitioner. I PETITIONER'S JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF On Review From The District
More informationSUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA MATINNAZ CONSTRUCTION, INC., vs. Petitioner/Appellee, DIAMOND REGAL DEVELOPMENT, INC., Case No.: SC09-4786 L.T. Case No.: 1D07-4786/ 1D07-5580 Respondent/Appellant. / ON REVIEW
More informationSUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA PETITIONER CRESCENT MIAMI CENTER, LLC S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION
SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CRESCENT MIAMI CENTER, LLC, vs. Petitioner, Supreme Court Case No. SC03-2063 THIRD DCA CASE NO. 02-3002 LT Case No. 00-21824 DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent.
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC TYRA WILLIAMS, Petitioner, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC 12-655 TYRA WILLIAMS, Petitioner, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. RESPONDENT'S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION PAMELA JO BONDI Attorney General Tallahassee,
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
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA LESTER SMULL, Petitioner, CASE NO.: 4 TH DCA CASE NO.:4D02-1818 v. THE TOWN OF JUPITER, a Florida municipal corporation Respondent. / PETITIONER S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA KEVIN TRACY. v. Petitioner, Case No. SC07-2057 STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. / JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF OF RESPONDENT BILL MCCOLLUM ATTORNEY GENERAL TRISHA MEGGS PATE TALLAHASSEE
More informationSUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC PUTNAM COUNTY, Petitioner, JOHN EDMONDS and MARY EDMONDS., Respondent.
SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC12-1665 PUTNAM COUNTY, Petitioner, v. JOHN EDMONDS and MARY EDMONDS., Respondent. ON REVIEW FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIFTH DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA L.T.
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 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 THE STATE OF FLORIDA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA MARK ONDREY, vs. Appellant/Petitioner, FLORENCE PATTERSON, as Personal Representative of the Estate of JOHN WILLIAM PATTERSON, deceased. Case No.: SC04-961
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 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 FLORIDA. Case No. DCA No. 4D
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Case No. DCA No. 4D10-2310 KENNEDY TRINLEY & SANTINO, P.L., a Florida limited liability company, and EARL MAYER, JR., Petitioners, v. BARBARA SHULGASSER-PARKER, as Personal
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. 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.: SC Lower Tribunal No.: 1D ADAMS GRADING AND TRUCKING, INC. and JOHN M.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Case No.: SC07-1175 Lower Tribunal No.: 1D06-1760 ADAMS GRADING AND TRUCKING, INC. and JOHN M. BLOODSWORTH, Petitioners, vs. MICHAEL E. GRAY, Respondent. ON REVIEW FROM
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. CASE NO. SC Lower Tribunal Case No. 1D JAMES D. LEE, SR., Petitioner, vs.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC06-1719 Lower Tribunal Case No. 1D05-4974 JAMES D. LEE, SR., Petitioner, vs. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA,
More informationCASE NO. SC DAVID M. SORIA, M.D., INPHYNET CONTRACTING SERVICES, INC. and TEAM HEALTH, INC., JURISDICTIONAL ANSWER BRIEF
IN THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT _ CASE NO. SC11-2050 DAVID M. SORIA, M.D., vs Petitioner. INPHYNET CONTRACTING SERVICES, INC. and TEAM HEALTH, INC., Respondents. On discretionary conflict review of a decision
More informationIN THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT CASE NO. SC
IN THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT CASE NO. SC03-1242 IN RE: THE GUARDIANSHIP OF ) ) THERESA MARIE SCHIAVO, ) ) Incapacitated. ) ) ) ROBERT SCHINDLER and MARY ) SCHINDLER, ) ) Petition from the Second District
More informationIN 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 informationFiling # E-Filed 04/17/ :27:36 PM. RECEIVED, 04/17/ :28:29 PM, Clerk, Supreme Court STRICKEN
Filing # 55185929 E-Filed 04/17/2017 09:27:36 PM RECEIVED, 04/17/2017 09:28:29 PM, Clerk, Supreme Court TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS... TABLE OF CITATIONS... ii iii INTRODUCTORY AND STATEMENT OF
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 informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC v. DCA CASE NO. 4D
CCC INVESTMENTS I, LLC, d/b/a TIFFANY HOUSE BY MARRIOTT, a foreign corporation; et al., IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Defendants/Petitioners CASE NO. SC06-1807 v. DCA CASE NO. 4D05-1990 ALEXANDER POLLOCK,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
Electronically Filed 05/20/2013 12:08:02 PM ET RECEIVED, 5/20/2013 12:08:39, Thomas D. Hall, Clerk, Supreme Court IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC13-782 L.T. Case Nos. 4DII-3838; 502008CA034262XXXXMB
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 DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, an Illinois corporation, authorized to do business in Florida, Appellant, v. CASE NO. SC04-351 GREGG A.
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Petitioner, Lower Tribunal Case No: 1D
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA GUERDA FREDERIC, Case No: NOT YET ASSIGNED Petitioner, Lower Tribunal Case No: 1D11-4956 vs. HMSHOST CORPORATION/GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES INC., Respondent. / PETITIONER
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC DCA CASE NO. 3D VINCENT MARGIOTTI. Petitioner, -vs- STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC03-2290 DCA CASE NO. 3D02-2862 VINCENT MARGIOTTI Petitioner, -vs- STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. ON PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC (Lower Tribunal Case No. 3D07-363) AHMAD ASAD, TONY GARCIA AND NOEL RIVERA, Petitioners, vs.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC12-653 (Lower Tribunal Case No. 3D07-363) AHMAD ASAD, TONY GARCIA AND NOEL RIVERA, Petitioners, vs. MIAMI-DADE COUNTY AND SGT. PATRICIA SEDANO, Respondents. ON
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. v. Lower Tribunals Case No. 1D On Review from the District Court of Appeal, First District, State of Florida
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA DYNELLE GIBSON, PETITIONER, Case No.: SC11-1450 v. Lower Tribunals Case No. 1D10-3008 ALTMAN CONTRACTORS and OJCC Case No. 07-030129DEJ NORTH RIVER INSURANCE COMPANY, RESPONDENTS.
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 informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF
THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA JOHNEE ANN ALLE HIRCHERT CASE NO.: SC11-1673 v. Petitioner, 5DCA#:5D09-3054 HIRCHERT FAMILY TRUST Respondent / 9 th Judicial Circuit Court Case No.: CI-06-OC-1397 PETITIONER
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 FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL CASE NO.: 3D THE STATE OF FLORIDA, Petitioner, -vs-
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC07-1836 DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL CASE NO.: 3D05-1892 THE STATE OF FLORIDA, Petitioner, -vs- HENRY GARY THORNTON, Respondent. ON PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC06-
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC06- TIMOTHY M. CORNELL, JR., and MARK CORNELL, petitioners, vs. JULIA MORGAN, respondent. ON DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC Petitioner, Appeal No.: 4D v. L.T. Case No.: CA035159XXXXMB
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FLORIDA BLACKTOP, INC., CASE NO.: SC12-1449 Petitioner, Appeal No.: 4D11-408 v. L.T. Case No.: 502009CA035159XXXXMB WEST CONSTRUCTION, INC., Respondent. / PETITIONER
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 SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY and AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY Petitioners, CASE NO: vs. Lower Tribunal No. 2D01-5770 BILTMORE CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. and CENTRAL-ALLIED ENTERPRISES,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Case No. SC L.T. CASE NO. 3D
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Case No. SC11-1875 STANLEY RAPHAEL, vs. Petitioner, THE STATE OF FLORIDA Respondent. / PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI DIRECTED TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD DISTRICT
More informationDESARROLLO INDUSTRIAL BIOACUATICO S.A. ( DIBSA ), E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, PETITIONER S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA NO. L.T. No. 4D01-779 DESARROLLO INDUSTRIAL BIOACUATICO S.A. ( DIBSA ), Petitioner, vs. E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, Respondent. On Petition for Discretionary Review
More informationCASE NO. SC07- L.T. No. 4D and 4D07-5 Consolidated with: 4D
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC07- L.T. No. 4D06-4349 and 4D07-5 Consolidated with: 4D06-1535 ALBERT SALEEBY, Petitioner, vs. ROCKY ELSON CONSTRUCTION, INC., Respondent. ON DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC IN RE: THE ESTATE OF MARY T. OSCEOLA, Petitioners, vs. PETTIES OSCEOLA, SR.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC04-4059 IN RE: THE ESTATE OF MARY T. OSCEOLA, Petitioners, vs. PETTIES OSCEOLA, SR., Respondent APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, THIRD DISTRICT
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 SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC06-74 ALEXANDER L. KAPLAN et ) Ano, ) Plaintiffs/Petitioners, ) ) vs. ) ) KIMBALL HILL HOMES ) FLORIDA, INC. ) Defendant/Respondent. ) Case No. 2D05-575 And CONSOLIDATED
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA. v. CASE NO. SC04-489
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA BIOMET, INC., a foreign corporation with its principal place of business in Warsaw, Indiana and licensed to do and be in business in Florida, and MIKE TRIESTE,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA. CASE NO. Lower Court Case No.: 4D
IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO. Lower Court Case No.: 4D02-2639 LAURI F. PARKER, individually and as the natural guardian of CASSIE DANIELE PARKER, Petitioner, v. STEVEN J. SHULLMAN, as
More informationRESPONDENT S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION
IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA TRUST CARE HEALTH SERVICES, INC., Petitioner/Appellant, CASE NO.: SC11-353 v. DCA NO.: 3D09-2568 STATE OF FLORIDA, AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION, Respondent/Appellee.
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF OF RESPONDENT
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA STATE OF FLORIDA, Petitioner, v. Case No. SC10-2418 RANDY SCOTT RIESEL, Respondent. / JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF OF RESPONDENT NANCY A. DANIELS PUBLIC DEFENDER DAVID P. GAULDIN
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA JAMES RICHARD COOPER, Appellant, v. Case No. SC11-341 STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. ON DISCRETIONARY REVIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FLORIDA, SECOND
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC08-426
IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC08-426 CONSTANTIN BARTSOCAS, and KIKI VASILICI BARTSOCAS, DCA Case Nos. 4D06-2267; 4D06-2407; 4D06-2787 (Cons.) Petitioners, v. ACE J. BLACKBURN, JR., JOAN
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 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 informationThird District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed August 12, 2015. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D14-2539 No. 3D14-904 Lower Tribunal No. 11-42103 Michele
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. COMES NOW, Respondent, WEST GABLES REHABILITATION
Filing # 9790298 Electronically Filed 01/31/2014 04:16:52 PM RECEIvED, 1/31/2014 16:18:46, John A. Tomasino, Clerk, Supreme Court IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA MARIE E. MENENDEZ, Petitioner, CASE NO.:
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 CASE NO. SC LEONARDO DIAZ, Petitioner, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC03-1031 LEONARDO DIAZ, Petitioner, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ON PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY
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 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 informationv. DCA CASE N,O: 2Q STATE OF FLORIDA Respondent PETITIONER'S JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA SCOTTIE SMART, JR. Petitioner CASE NO: v. DCA CASE N,O: 2Q12-55037 STATE OF FLORIDA Respondent.>+t PETITIONER'S JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF ON REVIEW FROM THE 2" DISTRICT COURT
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. CASE NO.: SCl AIMEE OSMULSKI, L.T. Case No.: 2D L.T. Case No.: CI-11
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SCl2-1624 AIMEE OSMULSKI, L.T. Case No.: 2D10-5962 L.T. Case No.: 08-11945-CI-11 v. Petitioner, OLDSMAR FINE WINE, INC. a/k/a LUEKENS BIG TOWN LIQUOR, INC, d/b/a
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 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. Petitioner, v. Supreme Court Case No.: SC Lower Tribunal Case No.:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA JOSEPH R. REDNER, Petitioner, v. Supreme Court Case No.: SC03-1612 Lower Tribunal Case No.: 96-02652 CITY OF TAMPA, Respondent. PETITIONER S FIRST AMENDED JURISDICTIONAL
More informationSUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CHARLES MASON, ) S. Ct. Case No.: SC03-778 ) 4DCA Case No. 4D01-3122 Petitioner, ) L.T. Case Nos. 91-42 CA ) 98-549 CA v. ) 98-561 CA ) E. SPEER & ASSOCIATES, INC., et al., ) )
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA. Petitioner, APPEAL CASE NO.: 1D PETITIONER S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA KAYNAN FITCHNER, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Chase Fitchner, deceased, S.C. CASE NO.: SC08- Petitioner, APPEAL CASE NO.: 1D06-4475 vs.
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 informationSUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SCU- H0) On Discretionary Review From. The Fourth District Court of Appeal (4D10-674) JACQUELINE HARVEY,
-. SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SCU- H0) On Discretionary Review From The Fourth District Court of Appeal (4D10-674) JACQUELINE HARVEY, Petitioner, VS. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY AS INDENTURE
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA. v. Case No. SC Lower Court Case No. 1D
IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA SHANDS TEACHING HOSPITAL AND CLINICS, INC., Petitioner, v. Case No. SC03-1656 Lower Court Case No. 1D02-1530 GARY JULIANA, II, a minor child, by and through his parents
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC WILLIE L. CLARK, Petitioner, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC05-1248 WILLIE L. CLARK, Petitioner, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. RESPONDENT'S AMENDED BRIEF ON JURISDICTION CHARLES J. CRIST, JR Attorney General
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Supreme Court Case No. SC BOCA INVESTORS GROUP, INC., Petitioner, IRWIN POTASH, ET AL., Respondents.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Supreme Court Case No. SC03-351 BOCA INVESTORS GROUP, INC., Petitioner, v. IRWIN POTASH, ET AL., Respondents. On Discretionary Conflict Review of a Decision of the Third
More information