IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. CASE NO.: SCl AIMEE OSMULSKI, L.T. Case No.: 2D L.T. Case No.: CI-11
|
|
- Dwight Osborne
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SCl AIMEE OSMULSKI, L.T. Case No.: 2D L.T. Case No.: CI-11 v. Petitioner, OLDSMAR FINE WINE, INC. a/k/a LUEKENS BIG TOWN LIQUOR, INC, d/b/a LUEKEN LIQUOR, Respondent. RESPONSE BRIEF TO PETITIONER'S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION COLE SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A. Attorneys for Respondent 9150 S. Dadeland Blvd., 14th Floor Miami, Florida Telephone: (305) Facsimile: (305)
2 TABLEOFCONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES... ii STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS...1 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT...1 JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT...3 ARGUMENT I. NOTHING IN THE SECOND DISTRICT'S OPINION IN OSMULSKI EXPRESSLY AND DIRECTLY CONFLICTS WITH THE FOURTH DISTRICT'S DECISION IN HETTIGER...4 CONCLUSION...10 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE...11 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE...12 DADELAND CENTRE II SOUTH DADELAND BOULEVARD - SUITE ) P.O. BOX M1AMI, FLORIDA (305) (305) FAX
3 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases: Page American Hospitality Mgmt. Co. of Minnesota v. Hettiger, 904 So. 2d 547 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)... passim Hagopian v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 788 So. 2d 1088 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)... 5, 7, 8 Osmulski v. Oldsmar Fine Wine, Inc., 93 So. 3d 389 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)... passim Penn. Lumberman's Mut. Ins. Co. v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 724 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)... 8, 9, 10 Reaves v. State, 485 So. 2d 829 (Fla. 1986)... 3 Royal & Sunalliance v. Lauderdale Marine Ctr., 877 So. 2d 843 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)... 8, 9 Other: Art. V 3(b)(3), Fla. Const... 1, 3 Fla. R. App. P (a)(2)(A)(iv)... 1, 3 11 DADELAND CENTRE Il SOUTH DADELAND BOULEVARD - SUITE P.O. BOX M1AMI, FLORIDA (305) (305) FAX
4 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Because Osmulski v. Oldsmar Fine Wine, Inc., 93 So. 3d 389 (Fla. 2d DCA2012) does not conflict on any point with any decision of this Court or of any District Court of Appeal, this Court does not have jurisdiction to review it. STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS The first paragraph of Petitioner's Statement of the Case and Facts is mere argument; it contains advocacy that is out of place in the Statement of the Case and Facts, which should be neutral; and it must be stricken or disregarded. (Pet'r Br., p. 1). The remainder of Petitioner's Statement of the Case and Facts is a fair recitation of the facts as they appear within the four corners of the decision of the Second District. SUMMARYOFTHEARGUMENT Conflict jurisdiction requires an express and direct conflict between the opinion under review and any opinion of this Court or another District Court of Appeal. Art. V 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.; Fla. R. App. P (a)(2)(A)(iv). Nothing in the Osmulski decision conflicts with any point in any decision of this Court or any other District Court of Appeal. Petitioner's assertion that Osmulski conflicts with the Fourth District's decision in American Hospitality Management Company 1 DADELAND CENTRE II SOUTH DADELAND BOULEVARD - SUITE P.O. BOX MIAMI FLORJDA (305) (305) FAX
5 Case No.: SC of Minnesota v. Hettiger, 904 So. 2d 547 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) is incorrect. Hettiger is inapposite, and does not present the express and direct conflict necessary invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. Petitioner argues that the decision in Osmulski was made by the Second District "apparently on its own and without regard to the Fourth District's contrary holding"-but this is incorrect. (Pet'r Br., p. 5). The Second District's decision was made, not on its own or in a vacuum, but after a great deal of input from the parties, who collectively submitted an initial brief, answer brief, and reply brief, and who appeared for oral argument before the court. Moreover, the opinion in Osmulski recites the supposedly-contrary holding of the Fourth District in the Hettiger case, and deals with it head-on. (A 6-7). Thus, the Second District did not act "without regard" to the Fourth District. In reality, in the Second District engaged in a thoughtful analysis of Petitioner's arguments regarding the application of the "reasonably foreseeable" standard in which some courts, including the Fourth District when deciding Hettiger, have suggested the existence of a pre-suit common law duty to preserve evidence. The "reasonably foreseeable" standard has been used as a basis to argue a common law duty to preserve evidence in circumstances when a defendant can anticipate that litigation may be filed. The Osmulski court recognized this 2 DADELAND CENTRE II SOUTH DADELAND BOULEVARD - SUITE P O. BOX MlAMI, FLORIDA (305) (305) FAX
6 argument and did not outright reject it, Petitioner's suggestion to the contrary notwithstanding. (A 6-7). Nothing the Osmulski court decided directly and expressly conflicts with Hettiger. Because the underlying case was unlike Hettiger, and, more importantly, did not in any significant way conflict with the Fourth District's decision in Hettiger, conflict jurisdiction does not exist. For these reasons, the Petition should be denied. JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT The Florida Supreme Court is authorized to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to review decisions issued by the District Courts of Appeal that expressly and directly conflict with a decision of the Supreme Court or other District Courts of Appeal on the same point of law. See Art. V, 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.; Fla. R. App. P (a)(2)(A)(iv). The conflict must be "express and direct" and must appear within the four corners of the majority opinion. Reaves v. State, 485 So. 2d 829, 830 (Fla. 1986) ("Conflict between decisions must be express and direct, i.e., it must appear within the four corners of the majority decision. Neither a dissenting opinion nor the record itself can be used to establish jurisdiction."). Nothing within the four corners of the Osmulski opinion expressly 3 DADELAND CENTRE II SOUTH DADELAND BOULEVARD - SUITE P.O. BOX MIAMI, FLORIDA (305) (305) FAX
7 and directly conflicts with the cases cited by Petitioner and, thus, jurisdiction does not lie in this Court. ARGUMENT I. NOTHING IN THE SECOND DISTRICT'S OPINION IN OSMULSKI EXPRESSLY AND DIRECTLY CONFLICTS WITH THE FOURTH DISTRICT'S DECISION IN HETTIGER. Petitioner contends that the Second District's decision in Osmulski creates a conflict with the Fourth District's decision in American Hospitality Management Company of Minnesota v. Hettiger, 904 So. 2d 547 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). (Pet'r Br., pp. 4-9). The Hettiger case, however, is readily distinguishable, and is not a true conflict decision. In Hettiger, a repairman injured on a hotel's premises obtained a mid-trial instruction as to a rebuttable presumption of negligence on the hotel's part. The background facts were as follows: The repairman accompanied other air conditioning service personnel to a Holiday Inn. The repairman borrowed a ladder from the hotel operator to do the repairs. While using the ladder he fell from it and sustained severe injuries. That same day, the hotel operator destroyed the ladder. Hettiger at 548. Applying the reasonably foreseeable standard, the Fourth District noted that: 4 DADELAND CENTRE II SOUTH DADELAND BOULEVARD - SUITE P.O. BOX MIAMI FLORIDA (305) (305) F AX
8 Although this is not a products liability claim directly against a manufacturer, plaintiff's claim was founded on an allegation that the hotel operator knew that the ladder was dangerous to use. Under this circumstance a finder of fact could reasonably conclude that its unavailability was something other than fortuitous. Hettiger at 549. The Hettiger case also contains the following statement, which Osmulski apparently relies for conflict jurisdiction: In the context of a claim for spoliation of evidence other than medical records, we have held that a defendant could be charged with a duty to preserve evidence where it could reasonably have foreseen the claim. Hettiger at 549. However, this statement is not the holding of Hettiger; it is a recitation of a previous holding from an earlier case.' Furthermore, nothing in the Osmulski decision expressly and directly conflicts with this statement. To the contrary, in Osmulski, the Second District discussed both Hettiger and the "reasonably foreseeable" standard for the imposition of a common law duty to preserve potential evidence. (A 6-7). The holding of Osmulski can perhaps best be understood as an extension of Hettiger, in which the Second District applied Hettiger, discussed the "reasonably foreseeable" standard, and Although whether that was actually the holding of the earlier case, Haaopian v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 788 So. 2d 1088 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) is discussed in more detail, infra. 5 DADELAND CENTRE II SOUTH DADELAND BOULEVARD - SUITE P O. BOX MIAMI FLORIDA (305) (305) FAX
9 crafted a common-sense, real world, and equitable rule for "businesses or homeowners." (A 7). The Osmulski court declared that: [I]f a defendant has knowledge that an accident or incident has occurred on its property and that same defendant has a video camera that may have recorded the accident or incident, that defendant has a duty to obtain and preserve a copy of any relevant information recorded by that camera if a written request to do so has been made by the injured party or their representative prior to the point at which the information is lost or destroyed in the normal course of the defendant's video operations. (A 7). Clearly, the inclusion of the statement "if a defendant has knowledge that an accident or incident has occurred on its property" in this holding is a nod to the "reasonably foreseeable" standard put forth by Petitioner and discussed in Hettiger (and in Osmulski, one page earlier). (A 6). Moreover, the Osmulski court took pains to tie this holding in with the "reasonably foreseeable" standard, noting that generally "[e]ven under the reasonably foreseeable standard, the plaintiff's failure to make such a request [to preserve the evidence] would certainly be considered as a factor in determining whether a plaintiff's claim was reasonably foreseeable." (A 6). More specifically, of the case under review, the Second District stated: Even if Osmulski was not required to make a written request for the preservation of the video evidence, she 6 DADELAND CENTRE II SOUTH DADELAND BOULEV ARD - SUITE P O BOX MIAML FLORIDA (305) (305) FAN
10 would not be entitled to a spoliation jury instruction under the reasonably foreseeable standard upon which she bases her argument... here, at the time the video recordings were discarded or taped over, no lawsuit had been filed, no demand for preservation of the evidence had been made, and OFW's principal testified that even though he was aware that Osmulski had made a claim with the insurance carrier, he had been told that Osmulski was only seeking payment for her medical expenses. Thus, OFW was not on notice of a claim beyond medical expenses. Consequently, OFW did not have a duty to preserve the video recordings even under the reasonably foreseeable standard. (A 8). Thus, in Osmulski, the Second District did not set up a "written request versus no written request" paradigm as Petitioner has suggested. (A 5-10). Instead, it noted that a written request to preserve evidence was necessary in some instances and that in some instances, it could be evidence that a claim was reasonably foreseeable. That being the case, the Second District's decision in Osmulski plainly does not expressly and directly conflict with Hettiger, which the Osmulski court considered, applied, and modified. Petitioner, though, also cites Hagopian v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 788 So. 2d 1088, 1090 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), stating that it "recognize[ed] [an] establishment's duty to preserve evidence even without a contractual, statutory, or administrative duty." (Pet'r Br., p. 6). However, the Fourth District later clarified that, in Hagopian, it had not established "any common law duty to preserve 7 DADELAND CENTRE II SOUTH DADELAND BOULEVARD - SUITE P.O. BOX MIAMI FLORIDA (305) (305) FAX
11 evidence." See Royal & Sunalliance v. Lauderdale Marine Ctr., 877 So. 2d 843 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004), stating: Royal has argued, relying on Hagopian, that there can also be a common law duty to preserve evidence before litigation has begun... However, Hagopian does not expressly establish any common law duty to preserve evidence. Instead, in Hagopian, this court focused on Hagopian's ability to prove the case without the destroyed evidence, which involves the fourth and fifth elements of a spoliation claim. Royal & Sunalliance at 846 (emphasis supplied) (citing Hagopian).2 Thus, contrary to Osmulski's citation of it, Hagopian does not focus on, much less "recognize," a common law duty element of a spoliation claim. In the same way, Osmulski cites Pennsylvania Lumberman's Mutual Insurance Company v. Florida Power & Light Co., 724 So. 2d 629, 630 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) for the proposition that "notice of potential litigation triggers the duty to preserve evidence." (Pet'r Br., p. 6). But contrary to Osmulski's summary of that case, the Third District did not hold in Penn. Lumberman's that notice of potential litigation triggers any duty. The entirety of Penn. Lumberman's states: Pennsylvania Lumberman's Mutual Insurance Company appeals from an Order granting the defendant, Florida Power & Light Company's Motion for Partial Summary 2 The Royal & Sunalliance court made clear that there was no "common law duty to preserve evidence before litigation has begun" and/or "in anticipation of litigation." Royal & Sunalliance, 724 So. 2d at DADELAND CENTRE II SOUTH DADELAND BOULEVARD - SUITE P.O. BOX 5690)5 - MIAM), FLORIDA (305) (305) FAX
12 Judgment in a case alleging spoliation of evidence. Unlike the defendant in Bondu v. Gurvich, 473 So. 2d 1307 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), the defendant in this case was not under any statutory or contractual duty to maintain or preserve the transformer in question. To the extent that the appellant, who was the plaintiff below, argues that the defendant was under some type of common law duty to preserve the transformer in question after being notified of possible legal action against the defendant in connection with the transformer, we note that the record refutes the plaintiff's contention that the defendant's legal department was notified both by a letter and a "fax" concerning the possible initiation of legal action and, therefore, should have preserved the transformer as potential evidence in that legal action. As far as the notification by letter is concerned, it is undisputed that the letter was mailed to an incorrect address. Furthermore, as far as the "fax" is concerned, the plaintiff's own "fax" activity sheet reflects that, although an attempt was made to "fax" two pages, none were actually transmitted. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the Summary Judgment entered by the trial court in favor of the defendant, which is under review herein, is affirmed. Id. at 630. Therefore, the most that can be said about Penn. Lumberman's is that it recites that the plaintiff in that case raised an (ultimately unavailing) argument "that the defendant was under some type of common law duty to preserve the transformer in question after being notified of a possible legal action against the defendant in connection with the transformer... " Id. The case, unequivocally, does not hold that "notice of potential litigation triggers the duty to preserve evidence," Osmulski's parenthetical to the contrary notwithstanding. (Pet'r Br., p. 9 DADELAND CENTRE II SOUTH DADELAND BOULEVARD - SUITE P O. BOX MIAML FLORIDA (305) (305) FAX
13 6). Instead, Penn Lumberman's merely observes that even if there could be presumed to be a common law duty, this issue is not reached because the defendant was never on notice of any potential suit. Thus, no case has the holding which Petitioner claims is in direct and express conflict with the holding of the Osmulski decision out of the Second District. Therefore, as set forth above, neither Hettiger, nor any other case cited by Osmulski, creates a basis for the conflict jurisdiction of this Court, and the Petition should be denied. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, there is no jurisdictional basis for review by this Court because none of the cases relied upon by Petitioner, either implicitly or explicitly, support a claim of express and direct conflict. The Petition should therefore be denied and dismissed. 10 DADELAND CENTRE II SOUTH DADEL AND BOULEV ARD - SUITE P.O BOX M1AM1, FLORIDA (305) (305) FAX
14 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing was provided via electronic mail on this day of October, 2012, to: Celene H. Humphries, Esq., Brannock & Humphries, 100 S. Ashley Drive, Suite 1130, Tampa, FL 33602; and Justin W. Pimenta, Abrahamson & Uiterwyk, 900 W. Platt Street, Suite 100, Tampa, FL COLE SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A. A ttorneysfor Respondent 9150 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1400 Miami, Florida Telephone: (305) Facsi 305) By: ANNE C. SULLIVAN FBN: DADELAND CENTRE II SOUTH DADELAND BOULEVARD - SUITE I400 - P O BOX MIAMI, FLORIDA (305) (305) FAX
15 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE Pursuant to Rule 9.210(a), Fla. R. App. P., undersigned counsel hereby certifies that this brief is submitted in Tim By: ew Roman 14-po' t font. ANNE C. SULLIVAN FBN: DADEL AND CENTRE II SOUTH DADEL AND BOULEVARD - SU5TE P O BOX M1AM1, FLORIDA (305) (305 ) FA X
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA AIMEE OSMULSKI, Petitioner, Case No.: SC12-1624 vs. L.T. Case No.: 2D10-5962 08-11945-CI-11 OLDSMAR FINE WINE, INC., a/k/a LUEKENS BIG TOWN LIQUOR, INC., d/b/a LUEKEN LIQUOR,
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 informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA KAYREN P. JOST, as Personal ) Representative of the Estate of Arthur Myers, Deceased ) Case Number: On Appeal from the Second Petitioner/Plaintiff, ) District Court of 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 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 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 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 informationIN THE SUPREME COURT THE STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC DCA CASE NO. 3D DOCTOR DIABETIC SUPPLY, INC., Appellant / Petitioner,
IN THE SUPREME COURT THE STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC10-1922 3DCA CASE NO. 3D09-1475 DOCTOR DIABETIC SUPPLY, INC., Appellant / Petitioner, v. POAP CORP. d/b/a EXCHANGE PLACE, Appellee / Respondent. PETITIONER
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA RESPONDENTS ENGLEWOOD COMMUNITY HOSPITAL AND RSKCO S ANSWER BRIEF ON JURISDICTION
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA VICKI LUCAS, vs. Petitioner, ENGLEWOOD COMMUNITY HOSPITAL and RSKCO, CASE NO.: SC07-1736 L.T. Case No.: 1D06-5161 Respondents. / RESPONDENTS ENGLEWOOD
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
Filing # 10750991 Electronically Filed 02/27/2014 10:29:07 AM RECEIVED, 2/27/2014 10:33:37, John A. Tomasino, Clerk, Supreme Court IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA LISA M. DETOURNAY, ) BRENDA RANDOL, and
More informationSUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA RESPONDENTS JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF
SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC05-1649 MERCURY INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA, Petitioner, vs. ASHLEY COATNEY, etc., et al., Respondents. ON REVIEW FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST DISTRICT
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 OF FLORIDA
SCOTT KATZMAN, M.D. and ADVANCED ORTHOPAEDICS, P.A., IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Petitioners, Case No. SC12-114 v. 4 th DCA Case No. 4D11-1290 REDIRON FABRICATION, INC. GEORGE MARTIN and ALLISON MINJARES,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Case Number SC03-131 (Lower Tribunal # 3D00-3278) A.M. BEST ROOFING, INC., Petitioner, versus RICHARD KAYFETZ, Respondent. ON NOTICE TO INVOKE DISCRETIONARY CONFLICT JURISDICTION
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: SC05-374
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO: SC05-374 BRIDGESTONE/FIRESTONE, INC., vs. Petitioner, CAROLYN HOLMES, individually, and as Parent and Guardian of COREY HOLMES and COURTNEY HOLMES, Respondents.
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 STEVEN PAVONE, Petitioner, vs. ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD., Respondent.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC12-1817 STEVEN PAVONE, Petitioner, vs. ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD., Respondent. ON PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA,
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.: SC ADRIAN FlUDMAN. Petitioner V5. SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF ILLINOIS. Respondent
Electronical]v Filed 10/07/20l303:01:37 PM ET RECE]VED. l0/7/20]3 2 l:38:3i Thomas D. Hall Clerk. Supreme Court SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC13-1607 ADRIAN FlUDMAN Petitioner V5. SAFECO INSURANCE
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 CASE NO.: SC11- THIRD DISTRICT CASE NO.: 3D UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY a Florida Corporation,
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC11- THIRD DISTRICT CASE NO.: 3D10-108 UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY a Florida Corporation, Petitioner, -v- KENDALL SOUTH MEDICAL CENTER INC., & DAILYN
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
Filing # 21591912 Electronically Filed 12/15/2014 10:01:22 AM RECEIVED, 12/15/2014 10:03:42, John A. Tomasino, Clerk, Supreme Court IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA EVA SANTAMARIA, Individually and for
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 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 FLORIDA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA VIRGINIA FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, CASE NO.: SC04-1603 vs. Petitioner, THOMAS ALBERT DUNFORD and RACHEL PEERY, Respondents. Application For Discretionary Review
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. Case No. SCO LYNN HILLMAN, MARY PATRICIA BOSNER and ROBERTA JAMES, Petitioners,
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Case No. SCO5-284 LYNN HILLMAN, MARY PATRICIA BOSNER and ROBERTA JAMES, Petitioners, v. HCA HEALTH SERVICES OF FLORIDA, INC. d/b/a BLAKE MEDICAL CENTER, Respondent. RESPONDENT
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 informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO: SC04- EDNA DE LA PENA, Petitioner, vs. SUNSHINE BOUQUET COMPANY and HORTICA, Respondents.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO: SC04- EDNA DE LA PENA, Petitioner, vs. SUNSHINE BOUQUET COMPANY and HORTICA, Respondents. PETITIONER S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION Richard Zaldivar, Esquire Jay M. Levy,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. PETITIONER S JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF On Review From The Fourth District Court of Appeal
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA USA TRUCK, INC., v. Defendant/Petitioner, Case No: SC05-8 4DCA Case No. 4D03-2485 JORGE ADOLPHO GALVEZ, ET AL. Plaintiff/Respondent. PETITIONER S JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF On
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 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
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CARMEN DESOCIO : : Respondent-Plaintiff, : : Case No. v. : Second District Court of : Appeal No. 04-2112 : Sixth Judicial Circuit, Pinellas County : Case No. 02-007080CI-011
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 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
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE N O SC06-764 District Court N O 03D04-2123 KLAUS VERMEULEN, Petitioner, v. WORLDWIDE HOLIDAYS, INC., Respondent. On Petition for Discretionary Review from the District
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 LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY and NORMA J. PEELE, Petitioners, vs. COLLEEN M.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Case No. SC07-2266 LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY and NORMA J. PEELE, Petitioners, vs. COLLEEN M. STEADMAN, Respondent. On Review from the Second District Court of Appeal
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. v. Case No: SC03-26 Lower Tribunal No: 2D DAVID C. McNEIL, RESPONDENT S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., Petitioner/Defendant. v. Case No: SC03-26 Lower Tribunal No: 2D01-4547 DAVID C. McNEIL, Respondent/Plaintiff. / RESPONDENT S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. v. CASE NO. SC ON DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA BRENT HUCK, Petitioner, v. CASE NO. SC04-2046 STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. / ON DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF OF RESPONDENT
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
Filing # 16753499 Electronically Filed 08/05/2014 04:58:21 PM RECEIVED, 8/5/2014 17:03:44, John A. Tomasino, Clerk, Supreme Court IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Case No. SC14-1360 L.T. CASE NO.: 2D13-3872
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Case No. SC08-2255 VANNESSA VAN VORGUE, Petitioner, v. 3d DCA CASE NO. 07-378 MARA M. RANKIN, Respondent. / PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW OF A DECISION OF THE DISTRICT
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. and MILLENNIUM PHYSICAN DCA Case No.: 2D GROUP, LLC,
Filing # 14582210 Electronically Filed 06/09/2014 02:42:53 PM RECEIVED, 6/9/2014 14:43:36, John A. Tomasino, Clerk, Supreme Court IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA JOSEPH S. CHIRILLO, JR., M.D., JOSEPH S.
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 STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC
IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC06-2006 CHURCH & TOWER OF FLORIDA, INC., vs. Petitioner, BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC., a foreign corporation, and LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. v. Case No. SCO5-938 Lower Case No. 3D RESPONDENT'S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA ROCCO NAPOLITANO Petitioner, v. Case No. SCO5-938 Lower Case No. 3D04--318 STATE OF FLORIDA, Florida Department of Corrections Respondent. ================================================================
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA. CASE NO.: SC FOURTH DCA CASE NO.: 4D L.T. No.: (27)
IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC08-1689 FOURTH DCA CASE NO.: 4D07-1153 L.T. No.: 0120551 (27) ANNA JANE JOHNSON, individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Gene Johnson,
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 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 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
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 informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC DCA Case No. 4D Florida Bar No
DAVION MCKEITHAN, a minor, by and through his parent and next best friend, DELORES MCKEITHAN and DELORES MCKEITHAN, individually, IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC04-1876 DCA Case No. 4D03-2154
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 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. 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 informationSTATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA CONDOMINIUMS, TIMESHARES AND MOBILE HOMES
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA CONDOMINIUMS, TIMESHARES AND MOBILE HOMES IN RE: PETITION FOR ARBITRATION-HOA ELECTION STEPHEN A. BRAND and DAVID
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. v. Case No. SC STATE OF FLORIDA, DCA NO.: 2D
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA TODD A. HATFIELD, Petitioner, v. Case No. SC10-2404 STATE OF FLORIDA, DCA NO.: 2D09-5938 Respondent. 05-18908CFANO ON PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM THE SECOND DISTRICT COURT
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. Case No.: SC L.T. Case No.: 3D LOUIS R. MENENDEZ, JR. and CATHY MENENDEZ, Petitioners,
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Case No.: SC08-789 L.T. Case No.: 3D06-2570 LOUIS R. MENENDEZ, JR. and CATHY MENENDEZ, Petitioners, v. PROGRESSIVE EXPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent. On Discretionary
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 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 # 22133460 E-Filed 01/03/2015 05:17:30 PM IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA STATE OF FLORIDA, vs. Petitioner, EDDIE RUTLEDGE, Case No: SC14-2487 L.T. Case No. 4D10-5022 RECEIVED, 1/3/2015 05:18:49
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 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 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 S. CT. CASE NO. SC
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA WILFRID METELLUS, Petitioner, S. CT. CASE NO. SC02-1494 vs. DCA CASE NO. 5D01-1044 STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. / ON DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL,
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 FIRST DISTRICT CASE NO. 1D L.T. CASE NO CA WENDY HABEGGER, Petitioner, vs.
Filing # 11759404 Electronically Filed 03/26/2014 10:24:29 AM RECEIVED, 3/26/2014 10:28:40, John A. Tomasino, Clerk, Supreme Court IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC13-2506 FIRST DISTRICT CASE
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA. CASE NO. SC09- L.T. Case No. 4D
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC09- L.T. Case No. 4D08-1429 COLUMBIA HOSPITAL CORPORATION OF SOUTH BROWARD, d/b/a WESTSIDE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, a foreign For profit corporation,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA LESLIE DEMENIUK, Petitioner, v. 5th DCA Case No. 5D04-756 Supreme Court Case No. SC04-2248 STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. / ON DISCRETIONARY REVIEW OF THE DISTRICT
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC05-54 L.T. NO. 2D
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC05-54 L.T. NO. 2D03-1594 VANDERBILT SHORES CONDOMINIUM ASSOC., INC., VANDERBILT CLUB CONDOMINIUM ASSOC., INC., VANDERBILT LANDINGS, CONDOMINIUM ASSOC., INC.,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC DISTRICT COURT CASE NO. 4D
FILEMENA PORCARO, as the personal representative of the Estate of John Anthony Porcaro, vs. Petitioner, GREAT SOUTHERN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC04-924 DISTRICT
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 STATE OF FLORIDA LAURA RUIMY, Appellant/Plaintiff/Petitioner, vs. FLOR N. BEAL, ALEX RENE BIAL a/k/a ALEX RENE BEAL,
IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA LAURA RUIMY, Appellant/Plaintiff/Petitioner, vs. FLOR N. BEAL, ALEX RENE BIAL a/k/a ALEX RENE BEAL, Appellee/Defendant/Respondent. SUPREME COURT CASE NO.: 09-428 3
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Petitioners, CASE NOS.: 91,966 92,382 vs. 92,451 (Consolidated) JAMES S. PARHAM,
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA MUSCULOSKELETAL INSTITUTE CHARTERED, d/b/a FLORIDA ORTHOPAEDIC INSTITUTE, CHESTER E. SUTTERLIN, III, M.D., and CHESTER E. SUTTERLIN, III, M.D., P.A., and GENE A. BALIS,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA SANDRA P. CASTILLO, Sc12.-16n Petitioner, DCA Case No.: 3D11-2132 VS. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY AS TRUSTEE FOR MORGAN STANLEY ABS CAPITAL I 2 INC. TRUST 2006-HE7
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. CASE NO. SC (Lower Tribunal Case No. 3D07-818) MARTHA VALDEZ, Petitioner, vs.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC08-670 (Lower Tribunal Case No. 3D07-818) MARTHA VALDEZ, Petitioner, vs. HOMEOWNERS ASSISTANCE GROUP, LLC., A Florida limited liability company, Respondent. RESPONSE
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF OF RESPONDENT
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA WILLIAM MURPHY ALLEN JR., v. Petitioner, STATE OF FLORIDA, CASE NO. SC06-1644 L.T. CASE NO. 1D04-4578 Respondent. JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF OF RESPONDENT CHARLES J. CRIST, JR.
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC04-338
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC04-338 R. BRENT MAGGIO, CRESTVIEW INVESTMENTS, INC., d/b/a CRESTVIEW NURSING AND CONVALESCENT HOME, FT. WALTON BEACH INVESTMENTS, INC., d/b/a FT. WALTON BEACH
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA. v. CASE NO. SC L.T. No.: CA 13
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA BEATRICE HURST, as Personal Representative of the Estate of KENNETH HURST, Petitioner, v. CASE NO. SC07-722 L.T. No.:04-24071 CA 13 DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA CASE NO. SC07-2135 LUIS R. COLON, Petitioner, -vs- MERCEDES HOMES, INC., ETC. Respondent. / BRIEF OF PETITIONER, COLON, ON JURISDICTION Michael Manglardi,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA PAMELA GRUNOW, as Personal Representative of the Estate of BARRY GRUNOW, deceased, vs. Petitioner, VALOR CORPORATION OF FLORIDA, a Florida corporation, TALLAHASSEE,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. CASE NO. SC Third DCA Case No. 3D PETITIONER, JAMES L. BERRY'S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION
JAMES L. BERRY, IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA vs. Petitioner, TERRY PLUMBING & HOME SERVICES, INC., CASE NO. SC05-982 Third DCA Case No. 3D02-2920 Respondent. / PETITIONER, JAMES L. BERRY'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
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA WILLIAM E. WILLIAMSON, v. Petitioner, Case No. SC08-2192 STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. / JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF OF RESPONDENT BILL MCCOLLUM ATTORNEY GENERAL TRISHA MEGGS PATE
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
Filing # 52860487 E-Filed 02/22/2017 10:20:05 PM IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA JANE E. CAREY, ESQ., and JANE E. CAREY, P.A., Petitioners, CASE NO: SC17- v. RECEIVED, 02/22/2017 10:23:34 PM, Clerk, Supreme
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 informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA PETITIONER S AMENDED BRIEF ON JURISDICTION
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA EDWIN MATOS, PETITIONER, CASE NO: SC05-887 Lower Trib. Case No: 4D03-2043 vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT. / PETITIONER S AMENDED BRIEF ON JURISDICTION Fleischman & Fleischman,
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 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 FLORIDA. Petitioners, CASE NO.: SC SECOND DCA CASE NO.: 2D RESPONDENT S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA FRANCISO CRUZ and NIKURA CHIRINIO, Petitioners, CASE NO.: SC 12151 SECOND DCA CASE NO.: 2D11-1826 v. COOPERATIVA DE SEGUROS MULTIPLES DE PUERTO RICO, INC., Respondent. RESPONDENT
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
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CHARLES DAVID POPE, Petitioner, v. Case No. SC03-890 STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. / Fifth DCA Case No. 5D02-3594 ON DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF
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 CASE NO. SC: L.T. Case No. 3D CASTELO DEVELOPMENTS, LLC. Petitioner, NAKIA RAWLS, et al. Respondents.
Electronically Filed 10/24/2013 05:29:35 PM ET RECEIVED, 10/24/2013 17:33:39, Thomas D. Hall, Clerk, Supreme Court IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA L.T. Case No. 3D12-1332 CASTELO DEVELOPMENTS, LLC Petitioner,
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 information