-.aw Offices of Frank Shaughnessy, P.A.

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "-.aw Offices of Frank Shaughnessy, P.A."

Transcription

1 ] lemonically I-ikd 03/l K/20l3 J I:21:46 A51 lit RECEIVED, 3/lWZOI3 11:23:½, l'homas D. Hall, Clerk. Supreme Cuurt IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA DONALD MCSER, Supreme ccurt. Case Nc. Plair.tiff/Petit.ior.er F'5fth DCA Case No. 5D OMNT F[EALTHCARE, TNC. De f endar. L /Respondent. / PETITIONER'S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION IN S'JPPORT OF NOTICE TO INVOKE 2:SCRETIONARY s-urisdiction TO REVIEW DECISION OF THE EIFTH DISTRICT COUP.T OF APPEAL OF THE STATE Ob' FLORIDA -.aw Offices of Frank Shaughnessy, P.A. /S/ FRANK J. SHAUGRNESSY, ESQ. Florida Bar No, Emerson Dr, NF: Palm Bay, F / (321) (321) fà A-.torney for Petitioner/Appellec

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CASES STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS... 1 SUMMARY O F ARGUMENT ARGUMENT S A. The Fifth District' s decision ("Decision") changes the standard of a district court's jurisdictional limitations in direct conflict with other district courts and the Florida Supreme court that recognize Fl. R. App. P (b) (2) (A) as the standard. 3-4 B. The Decision is in conflict with the application of Oken's1 med-mal exception as followed by the Supreme Court and other district courts, ignores both the Oken three-prong test to apply the exception and Oken's caution that certiorari should rarely be utilized. 4-6 C. The Decision is in conflict with other district courts and the Supreme Court by requiring a Plaintiff to comply with Chapter 766 presuit requirements when neither of the two elements that subject a suit to Florida's Medical Malpractice Act are present; (1) a claim of medical Williams v. Oken, 62 So.3d 1129 (Fla., 2011)

3 negligence and (2) a health care provider defendant, this is of great public importance. 6-7 D. The Decision is in conflict with the standards recognized by the Supreme Court and other district courts for a court reviewing of a complaint for a motion to dismiss. 8-9 E. The Decision conflicts with the Supreme Court and other district courts by denying the Petitioner the opportunity to amend after material facts were discovered while the appeal was pending, this is of great public importance F. The Decision is of great public importance within the Fifth District as it is in conflict with both an earlier and later case, the public should have confidence that similar cases will receive similar outcomes CONCLUSION CERTIFICATE OF SERVI CE AND COMPLIANCE... 14

4 TABLE OF CASES Buchanan v. Lieberman, 526 So.2d 969 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988) J.B. v. Sacred Heart Hosp., 635 So.2d 945, (Fla. 1994) Lakeland RMC v. Allen, 944 So.2d 541 (Fla. 2"d DCA 2006)... 3 Martin-Johnson v. Savage, 509 So.2d 1097 (Fla., 1987) Mobley v. Hirschberg, 915 So.2d 217 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) Papa John's v. Consentino, 916 So.2d 977 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)..9 Palmer v. McCallion, 645 So.2d 131 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)...9 Parkway Bank v. Ft. Myers, 658 So.2d 646 (Fla. 2"d DCA 1995)..5 Pierrot v. Osceola Mental Health, No. 5D (Fla. 5th DCA January 11, ) Pizzi v. Central Bank Trust, 250 So.2d 895 (Fla. 1971).... 8, 9 Stackhouse v. Emerson, 611 So.2d 1365 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993) Trotter v. Ford Credit, 868 So.2d 593, 595 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).10 Wein stoc k V. Groth, 62 9 So. 2 d 8 35, ( F1a. 1993)... 7 Williams v. Oken, 62 So. 3d ( Fla., ) , 6

5 STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS1 This petition to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of this court is pursuant to Fl. R. App. P. 9.30(a) (2) (A) (iv) and (V), as well as Article V, section 3(b)of the Florida Constitution. The Fifth District Court of Appeal decision below (the "Decision"), dated December 7, 2012 granted the Respondent's petition for writ of certiorari, quashed the trial court order denying Respondent's motion to dismiss the amended complaint and remanded the case. Petitioner timely filed motions for rehearing, written opinion and clarification, all denied February 8, The Decision became final February 8, 2013 upon issuance of the Fifth District Court of Appeals' Mandate. The Petitioner timely filed notice to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court February 20, The Petitioner filed a complaint alleging simple negligence just before the expiration of the tort statute of limitations. Petitioner amended once by right, the amended complaint alleged that Respondent was a domestic Florida corporation. Respondent was not alleged to be a health care provider. 1 This statement only recites the key facts as necessary for this Court's jurisdictional review. When this Court accepts jurisdiction, Petitioner will provide an expanded statement of facts of the lower court and Fifth District activity related to these issues. 1

6 Medical negligence was not alleged. Petitioner alleged negligent supervision of an employee and negligent failure to secure medical records. Respondent filed a motion to dismiss with prejudice arguing failure to comply with Chapter 766's presuit requirements. The trial court heard argument and asked for briefs. After review of the briefs, the trial court denied defendant's motion. Respondent petitioned the Fifth District Court for a writ of Certiorari to review the trial court's non-final order. The case was not stayed and discovery continued. Material facts were discovered. Respondent answered interrogatories stating their employee (Ms. Bailey) was employed as office staff and had no medical license. Ms. Bailey allegedly caused Petitioner's damages by accessing his medical records, then misinterpreting a lab report and providing false information. Copies of the Decision and Mandate are included in this Brief's Appendix. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS The Decision requires Petitioner to follow Chapter 766 procedural requirements when there is no allegation of a health care provider or medical negligence within the four-corners of 2

7 the amended complaint. This is in direct conflict with decisions of other district courts and the Supreme Court. Arguably within the Fifth District the Decision will require future plaintiff compliance with Chapter 766 to sue over a sexual assault2, tainted turkey sandwich3 or being struck in the face by a dentist's x-ray machine4, in direct conflict with other district courts and the Supreme Court. The Decision is of great public important as it erodes the public confidence that similar cases will receive similar outcomes. This Court should accept jurisdiction to resolve the conflicts that the Fifth District Decision creates and to ensure that Florida courts continue to offer future plaintiffs justice, fairness, equity and access to the courts. ARGUMENTS A. The Fifth District's decision ("Decision") changes the standard of a district court's jurisdictional limitations in direct conflict with other district courts and the Florida Supreme court that recognize Fl. R. App. P (b) (2) (A) as the standard. 2 Buchanan v. Lieberman, 526 So.2d 969 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988), sexual assault during physical exam was not med mal. 3 Lakeland Reg. Med. Center v. Allen, 944 So.2d 541 (Fla. 2"4 DCA 2006) tainted turkey sandwich not med mal. 4 Mobley v. Hirschberg, 915 So.2d 217 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) Mobley sued dentist in simple negligence for personal injury. 3

8 A District Court's review a non-final order is governed by Fla. R. App. P. Rule 9.130(b) (2) (A) that "limits review to those specified in the rule".5 The instant order denying Petitioner's motion to dismiss does not fit the within the limitations of the Rule. The general rule is, "certiorari review is inappropriate to review the denial of a motion to dismiss".' Florida courts do recognize Oken's "exception to the general rule..and permit certiorari review when the presuit requirements of a medical malpractice stature are at issue."7 B. The Decision is in conflict with the application of Oken's' med-mal exception as followed by the Supreme Court and other district courts, ignores both the Oken three-prong test to apply the exception and Oken's caution that certiorari should rarely be utilized. The Fifth District relied on the Oken exception as a basis for certiorari jurisdiction, however misapplied the exception to a complaint that pled simple negligence against a defendant only alleged to be "a domestic Florida corporation". Oken was clearly case of medical negligence, Williams suffered a heart attack and sued Dr. Oken alleging negligent diagnosis, complying with all presuit requirements. At issue in Oken was whether Williams' medical expert was "qualified". The 5 Williams v. Oken, 62 So.3d 1129 (Fla., 2011) 6 Ibid 7 Ibid 8 Ibid 4

9 facts are completely unlike Petitioner's suit alleging simple negligence against a "domestic corporation". The Supreme Court explained in Oken how a petitioner must establish three prongs before a district court can grant certiorari relief from a denial of a motion to dismiss. Those prongs are: 1. departure from the essential requirements of the law; 2. resulting in material injury for the remainder of the case; 3. that cannot be corrected on postjudgment appeal. Respondent argued a departure and claimed harm but never carried the burden of proving that the harm was material or could not be corrected by postjudgment appeal. The Supreme Court, approving the Second DCA's Parkway Bank9 case, explained that Oken's last two prongs must be analyzed before a court may consider the first element. "If the jurisdictional prongs of the standard threepart test are not fulfilled, then the petition should be dismissed rather than denied."1 The Supreme Court further cautioned that; "In granting writs of..certiorari, district courts..should..be..concerned with the seriousness of the error". 9 Parkway Bank v. Ft. Myers, 658 So.2d 646 (Fla. 2 d DCA 1995) 1 Ibid at 649 5

10 The Supreme Court advised; "A district court may refuse to grant a petition..certiorari even though there may have been a departure from the essential requirements of law."" The Supreme Court in Martin-Savage" explained that harm might not matter noting; "Even when the order departs from the essential requirements of the law, there are strong reasons militating against certiorari review. For example, the party injured.. may eventually win the case..or the order may appear less.. harmful in light of the development of the case after the order". Recognizing that newly discovered facts revealed during discovery may require amendments to the complaint. The Decision contains no analysis of the three-prongs, no discussion of the three-prong's application to allow the grant of the exception, yet the Fifth District granted certiorari relief only citing to the exception. C. The Decision is in conflict with other district courts and the Supreme Court by requiring a Plaintiff to comply with Chapter 766 presuit requirements when neither of the two elements that subject a suit to Florida's Medical Malpractice Act are present; (1) a claim of medical negligence and (2) a health care provider defendant, this is of great public importance. Williams v. Oken, 62 So.3d 1129, 1133 (Fla. 2011) Martin-Johnson v. Savage, 509 So.2d 1097 (Fla., 1987) 6

11 Florida plaintiffs are required to comply with the procedural requirements of Chapter 766. However, for those procedural and presuit requirements to apply the complaint must allege medical malpractice within its four-corners and against a defendant(s) that is health care provider. The Supreme Court stated in Weinstock", health care providers are; "defendants in a medical malpractice action who are health care providers as defined in chapter 766 or... are vicariously liable for the acts of a health care provider." In the instant case, the defendant is alleged to be a "domestic Florida corporation" whose employee caused damages to Petitioner. Moreover, as discovery revealed the employee is not a licensed health care provider. The instant case is not a medmal case against a health provider, or a med-mal case against a defendant whose is vicariously liable for the acts of a health care provider. Neither element is present. The Decision is in direct conflict with the Supreme Court's Weinstock" decision and all other district courts that follow Weinstock's two elements for requiring compliance with Chapter 766's procedural requirements. Weinstock v. Groth, 629 So.2d 835, (Fla. 1993) Ibid 7

12 D. The Decision is in conflict with the standards recognized by the Supreme Court and other district courts for a court reviewing of a complaint for a motion to dismiss. The Decision states "respondent filed a complaint attempting to allege simple negligence against Petitioner...a "physician group practice". The is clear..what is alleged is a Fifth District then states, "it claim for medical malpractice." The Fifth District's characterizing Respondent as a "physician group practice" finds a material fact not appearing on face of the amended complaint. Petitioner alleged Respondent is a "domestic Florida corporation" and never uses the phrase "physician group practice" within the amended complaint. The Fifth District further goes past the four-corners by stating, the complaint "alleged...a claim for medical malpractice". The mistakes of ignoring the four-corners then leads to the misapplication of the Oken med-mal exception for a misplaced basis of jurisdiction and becomes the basis for the affirmative defense of failure to comply with the presuit requirements that the Decision grants. The Decision is in direct conflict the Supreme Court's four corners rule" set out in Pizzi" for courts reviewing complaints for a motion to dismiss under Fla. R. Civ. P. is Pizzi v. Central Bank Trust, 250 So.2d 895 (Fla. S. Ct. 1971) 8

13 1.110 (d). The Supreme Court's four-corner test is; "a court must confine itself strictly to the allegations within the four corners of the complaint."" The Fourth DCA instructed in Papa John's"; the facts alleged in the complaint must be accepted as true and all reasonable inferences are drawn in favor of the pleader." The Fifth District's Decision is in direct conflict with Palmer v. McCallion" and N.E. at West Palm Beach, Inc. V. Horowitz" where those district courts noted that; "if the face of the complaint contains allegations which demonstrate the existence of an affirmative defense, then such a defense may be considered on a motion to dismiss. Otherwise an affirmative defense may not be considered on a rule 1.140(d) motion to dismiss."papa John's20 In effect by finding undisputed facts (not within the fourcorners) then applying the law (the affirmative defense) the Decision grants summary judgment. Facts are for the jury to find, law is the providence of the courts. E. The Decision conflicts with the Supreme Court and other district courts by denying the Petitioner the opportunity to amend after material facts were Pizzi v. Central Bank Trust, 250 So.2d 895 (Fla. S. Ct. 1971) Papa John's v. Consentino, 916 So.2d 977 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) is Palmer v. McCallion, 645 So.2d 131 (Fla. 4 DCA 1994) 19 N.E. W. Palm Bch v. Horowitz, 471 So.2d 570 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1985) 20 Papa John's v. Consentino, 916 So.2d 977 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) 9

14 discovered while the appeal was pending, this is of great public importance. Petitioner had requested clarification as to whether the Decision allowed amendment, the motion was denied without comment. The Decision simply states, "remand for an entry of an order granting (Respondent's) Motion to Dismiss". Respondent had filed a Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice. The Fla.R.Civ.P. rules allow amending "freely when justice so requires" Rule 1.190(a). A court should grant a party leave to amend the complaint "unless the privilege of amendment has been abused or it is clear that the complaint cannot be amended to state a cause of action.n21 Newly discovered material facts were revealed by Respondent's answers to interrogatories. Respondent's answers stated that Isabel Bailey was it's office staff employee with no medical license. Ms. Bailey is alleged to have improperly accessed Petitioners' medical records and misinterpreted a report. The instant circumstance appears to be envisioned by the Fla.R.Civ.P. Rule 1.190(a) that allows amendment "freely when justice so requires". The Petitioner should be granted this 21 Trotter v. Ford Motor Credit Corp., 868 So.2d 593, 595 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) 10

15 right, to file an amended complaint, because dismissal with prejudice would forever end his action. F. The Decision is of great public importance within the Fifth District as it is in conflict with both an earlier and later case; the public should have confidence that similar cases will receive similar outcomes. The Fifth District case of Stackhouse v. Emerson" was the basis of the Petitioner's action against Respondent. Stackhouse successfully sued Dr. Emerson for simple torts committed by a doctor. The defense moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to comply with the two-year statute of limitations and the trial court denied. The Fifth District held "Succinctly stated, what we have here are claims for intentional torts independent of any medical diagnosis, treatment or care... To accept appellees' contention that their acts, as set forth in the complaint, are barred by the statute of limitations... would lead to the absurd result that every wrongful act committed by a amounts to medical malpractice."" The health care provider Fifth District denied the writ and allowed Stackhouse to proceed. Stackhouse v. Emerson, 611 So.2d 1365 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993) 23 Ibid 11

16 On January 11, 2013, the Fifth District filed it's opinion of Pierrot v. Osceola Mental Health24. Pierrot brought a wrongful death action against the defendant alleging violations of a patient's rights under the Baker Act. Defendant's moved to dismiss with prejudice arguing the claim was one of med-mal and Pierrot's failure to comply with presuit requirements. The trial court granted the motion noting the claim was "inescapably one for medical negligence" and the presuit requirements applied. In Pierrot, the Fifth District cited to J.B. v. Sacred Heart25 for the proposition that "for the requirements to apply, the claim must be for medical malpractice". Further, the Fifth District noted; "the presuit requirements of Florida's Medical Malpractice Act restrict plaintiffs' constitutional right of access to courts, so the requirements' applicability must be construed narrowly in favor of access." The Fifth District also noted, "the defendant must be a health care provider. Neither of these elements was present here."26 24 Pierrot v. Osceola Mental Health, No. 5D (Fla. 5th DCA January 11, 2013). 25 J.B. v. Sacred Heart Hosp., 635 So.2d 945 (Fla. 1994) 26 Pierrot v. Osceola Health, No. 5D (Fla. 5th DCA January 11, 2013) 12

17 Neither element is present in Petitioner's simple negligence action and should receive the same treatment as Stackhouse and Pierrot. However, the results greatly differ. The greatly differing results from the same District Court of Appeal, Pierrot within a month of the filing of the instant opinion will erode public confidence in the court system. And encourage the defense bar to bring forth the same attack against future plaintiffs, that their actions against any health care provider or their unlicensed employees for any tort is med-mal and requires strict compliance with all the restrictive Chapter 766 procedures. This will wrongly limit the public's constitutional right of court access. This is of great public importance and great importance to the courts. CONCLUSION This Court may exercise discretionary jurisdiction to review any decision of a district court of appeal that directly conflicts with the decisions of other district courts or of the supreme court on the same question of law or is certified to be of great public importance. Petitioners respectfully request this Court accept jurisdiction in this case based upon the direct conflicts and issues of great public importance created by the Decision of the Fifth District. 13

18 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Brief on Jurisdiction has been served via United States mail to Thomas E. Dukes, III, Esq., McEwan, Martinez & Dukes, P.A., P.O. Box 753, Orlando, FL , on this 18th day Of MarCh /S/ FRANK J. SHAUGHNESSY, ESQ. Law Offices of Frank Shaughnessy, 1490 Emerson Dr. NE Palm Bay, Fl (321) (321) fax Florida Bar No Attorney for Petitioner/Appellee P.A. CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH FONT REQUIREMENTS I HEREBY CERTIFY that this computer generated Brief on Jurisdiction submitted in Courier New 12 point font complies with the requirements of Rule 9.210(a) (2), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. /S/ Frank J. Shaughnessy. Esq. Attorney for Petitioner/Appellee 14

19 APPENDIX 1. Order from Fifth DCA, filed December 7, 2012, 2. Mandate from Fifth DCA, February 8, 2013, 1

20 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM 2012 OMNI HEALTHCARE, INC., NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED Petitioner, v. Case No. 5D DONALD MOSER, Respondent. / ADWAIT JATHAL, M.D., Petitioner, v. Case No. 5D DONALD MOSER, Respondent. Opinion filed December 7, 2012 Petition for Certiorari Review of Order, from the Circuit Court for Brevard County Robert T. Burger, Judge. Wilbert R. Vancol and Thomas E. Dukes, Ill, of McEwan, Martinez & Dukes, P.A., Orlando, for Petitioner, Omni Healthcare, Inc. Michael R. D'Lugo, of Wicker, Smith, O'Hara, McCoy & Ford, P.A., Orlando, for Petitioner Adwait Jathal, M.D. Frank J. Shaughnessy, of Law Offices of Frank Shaughnessy, P.A., Palm Bay, for Respondent.

21 PER CURIAM. Respondent filed a complaint attempting to allege simple negligence against Petitioners, who are a doctor, Adwait Jathal, and a physician group practice, Omni Healthcare, Inc. It is clear that what is alleged is a claim for medical malpractice. Petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss in the trial court based on Respondent's failure to comply with the presuit requirements of section , Florida Statutes. The trial court denied the Motion, and Petitioners each filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari with this court seeking review of that order 1 We conclude that because Respondent failed to comply with the statutory presuit requirements, the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law in refusing to dismiss Respondent's complaint. We grant the Petitions, quash the order of denial, and remand for entry of an order granting Petitioners' Motion to Dismiss. See Williams v. Oken, 62 So. 3d 1129, (Fla. 2011) ("Florida courts have created an exception to the general rule-that certiorari review is inappropriate to review the denial of a motion to dismiss-and permit certiorari review when the presuit requirements of a medical malpractice statute are at issue. See, e.g., Martin Mem'l Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Herber, 984 So. 2d 661, 662 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008); Lakeland Req'l Med. Ctr. v. Allen, 944 So. 2d 541, 543 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). The certiorari exception for the chapter 766 presuit requirements is premised on the purpose of the Medical Malpractice Reform Act-to avoid meritless claims and to encourage settlement for meritorious claims.").2 1 Although these cases were not consolidated on appeal, we review them together because they arise from the same facts and present the identical issue. 2 See also Kissimmee Health Care Assocs. v. Garcia, 76 So. 3d 1107, 1108 n.1 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) ("Although certiorari generally does not lie to review the denial of a 2

22 PETITIONS GRANTED; ORDER QUASHED; REMANDED. ORFINGER, CJ., SAWAYA, and BERGER, JJ., concur. motion to dismiss, there is a well-established exception for motions to dismiss for failure to comply with presuit conditions precedent." (citation omitted)); Cent. Fla. Req'l Hosp. v. Hill, 721 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). 3

23 M A N D A T E from DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT THIS CAUSE HAVING BEEN BROUGHT TO THIS COURT BY APPEAL OR BY PETITION, AND AFTER DUE CONSIDERATION THE COURT HAVING ISSUED ITS OPINION OR DECISION; YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED THAT FURTHER PROCEEDINGS AS MAY BE REQUIRED BE HAD IN SAID CAUSE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULING OF THIS COURT ATTACHED HERE TO AND INCORPORATED AS PART OF THIS ORDER, AND WITH THE RULES OF PROCEDURE AND LAWS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA. WITNESS THE HONORABLE RICHARD B. ORFINGER, CHIEF JUDGE OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, FIFTH DISTRICT, AND THE SEAL OF THE SAID COURT AT DAYTONA BEACH, FLORIDA ON THIS DAY. DATE: February 08, 2013 FIFTH DCA CASE NO.: 5D CASE STYLE: OMNI HEALTHCARE, INC. v. DONALD MOSER COUNTY OF ORIGIN: Brevard TRIAL COURT CASE NO.: CA X I hereby certify that the foregoing is (a true copy of) the original Court mandate. PAMELA R. MASTERS, CLERK cc: Michael R.D'Lugo Frank J.Shaughnessy Wilbert R.Vancol Clerk Brevard 2

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM v. Case No. 5D

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM v. Case No. 5D IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2013 JEAN PIERROT, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE, ETC., NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION

More information

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT HOLMES REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, INC., NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED Petitioner,

More information

IN 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. v. CASE NO. SC ON DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL Electronically Filed 05/17/2013 11:04:14 AM ET RECEIVED, 5/17/2013 11:08:35, Thomas D. Hall, Clerk, Supreme Court IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA MARK ERIC OSTERBACK, Petitioner, v. CASE NO. SC13-812 STATE

More information

CASE NO. SC L.T. CASE NO. 4D IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CATHERINE STANEK-COUSINS, Petitioner, STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent.

CASE NO. SC L.T. CASE NO. 4D IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CATHERINE STANEK-COUSINS, Petitioner, STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. CASE NO. SC05-1987 L.T. CASE NO. 4D05-1129 ========================================================== IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CATHERINE STANEK-COUSINS, Petitioner, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent.

More information

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM v. Case No. 5D

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM v. Case No. 5D IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM 2011 JAMES JOSEPH, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D10-1128 UNIVERSITY BEHAVIORAL LLC., ET AL., Appellee. / Opinion filed October

More information

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT MICHAEL HOLDEN, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D09-4112 )

More information

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT MARK E. POMPER, M.D., P.A., a Florida Profit Corporation d/b/a HORIZON MEDICAL SERVICES, and JULIA REYES, Petitioners, v. MARJORIE FERRARO

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA. Case No. SC

IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA. Case No. SC IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA Case No. SC05-1027 NOVA SOUTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY, INC., d/b/a/ NOVA SOUTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY OSTEOPATHIC TREATMENT CENTER, v. Petitioner/Defendant, SUSAN R. BURKE Respondent/Plaintiff,

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC DCA Case No. 4D Florida Bar No

IN 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 information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA Supreme Court Case No. SC02-2736 5th DCA Case Nos.: 5D01-1662, 5D01-1663, 5D01-1664, 5D01-1665 & 5D01-3426 GREAT AMERICAN RESTAURANTS, INC., et al, v. Petitioners/Appellants,

More information

IN 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. 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 information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA PETITIONER'S JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA PETITIONER'S JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CHARLES WILLIAMS, pro se, Defendant/Petitioner, CASE NO.: SC13- I v. 4th DCA NO.: 4D11-4882 STATE OF FLORIDA, PlaintifflRespondent. PETITIONER'S JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF On

More information

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM v. Case No. 5D

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM v. Case No. 5D IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2007 MARK BANKS and DEBBIE BANKS, etc, et al., Appellants, v. Case No. 5D05-4253 ORLANDO REGIONAL HEALTHCARE, etc., et

More information

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT

IN 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 information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Case No. SC BEST DIVERSIFIED, INC. and PETER HUFF. Petitioners, vs.

IN 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 information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC TIMOTHY SCOTT HARRIS, Petitioner. vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC TIMOTHY SCOTT HARRIS, Petitioner. vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC10-1056 TIMOTHY SCOTT HARRIS, Petitioner vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. RESPONDENT'S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION BILL McCOLLUM Attorney General Tallahassee,

More information

FLORIDA SUPREME COURT. Case No.: SC nd DCA Case No.: 2D Lower Tribunal Case No.: G Hillsborough County, Florida Circuit Court

FLORIDA 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 information

THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Petitioner, v. Case No. SC RINKER MATERIALS CORP., L.T. No. 3D10-488

THE 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 information

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM v. CASE NO. 5D

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM v. CASE NO. 5D IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM 2006 DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Petitioner, v. CASE NO. 5D05-3668 E.G., FATHER OF K.S.G. AND E.T.G., CHILDREN,

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Petitioner, Case No. SC JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF OF RESPONDENT

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Petitioner, Case No. SC JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF OF RESPONDENT IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA VERNON GOINS, v. Petitioner, Case No. SC06-356 STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF OF RESPONDENT CHARLES J. CRIST, JR. ATTORNEY GENERAL ROBERT R. WHEELER

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. V CASE No. SCl ON DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL, FIFTH DISTRICT

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. V CASE No. SCl ON DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL, FIFTH DISTRICT Filing # 18934264 Electronically Filed 10/02/2014 02:09:43 PM RECEIVED, 10/2/2014 14:14:26, John A. Tornasino, Clerk, Supreme Court IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA TIMOTHY HARRIS. Petitioner, V CASE No.

More information

SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA PETITIONER CRESCENT MIAMI CENTER, LLC S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION

SUPREME 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 information

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed September 26, 2018. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. Nos. 3D18-1524 & 3D18-1058 Lower Tribunal No. 16-7563

More information

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED MARK R. MOHAN AND ROHINI BUDHU, Appellants,

More information

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT. v. Case No. 5D

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT. v. Case No. 5D IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED PETER ALEJANDRO ENEA, Petitioner, v. Case

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

IN 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

CASE NO. 1D C. Philip Hall, McKenzie & Hall, P.A., Pensacola, for Appellant.

CASE NO. 1D C. Philip Hall, McKenzie & Hall, P.A., Pensacola, for Appellant. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA DORA B. DIRGA, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF ETHEL BRAUN, DECEASED, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA DAVID M. POLEN, v. ROSA POLEN, Petitioner, Respondent. / CASE NO. SC06-1226 4 TH DCA CASE NO. 4D06-1002 AMENDED ANSWER BRIEF ON JURISDICTION Respectfully submitted, JOEL

More information

SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA JAMES LEVOY WATERS, Petitioner, SHERIFF, ESCAMBIA COUNTY FLORIDA, Respondent. CASE NO. SC

SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA JAMES LEVOY WATERS, Petitioner, SHERIFF, ESCAMBIA COUNTY FLORIDA, Respondent. CASE NO. SC Electronically Filed 08/26/2013 04:20:02 PM ET RECEIVED, 8/26/2013 16:23:40, Thomas D. Hall, Clerk, Supreme Court SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA JAMES LEVOY WATERS, Petitioner, v. SHERIFF, ESCAMBIA COUNTY FLORIDA,

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC THIRD DISTRICT CASE NO. 3D PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL GROUP, INC., A/A/O MARVELIS BAUZA, Petitioner,

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC THIRD DISTRICT CASE NO. 3D PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL GROUP, INC., A/A/O MARVELIS BAUZA, Petitioner, IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC10-131 THIRD DISTRICT CASE NO. 3D09-771 PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL GROUP, INC., A/A/O MARVELIS BAUZA, Petitioner, vs. UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, A Florida

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. L.T. No. 1D

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. L.T. No. 1D IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA ROBERT ANDERSON Petitioner, VS. Case No. SC07-306 L.T. No. 1D06-2486 FLORIDA PAROLE COMMISSION, Respondent. RESPONDENT'S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION On petition for discretionary

More information

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM Petitioner, v. CASE NO. 5D

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM Petitioner, v. CASE NO. 5D IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM 2003 ORANGE COUNTY, Petitioner, v. CASE NO. 5D02-3592 JOHN LEWIS, Respondent. / Opinion filed October 10, 2003 Petition

More information

IN Tl le SUPREME COURT FOR THE STATE OF FLORIDA. CASE NO. SCl3-153 L. T. CASR NOS.; 4DI J-4801, CA COCE

IN 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 information

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT HFC COLLECTION CENTER, INC., Petitioner, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

IN 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 information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC HARVEY JAY WEINBERG and KENNETH ALAN WEINBERG,

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC HARVEY JAY WEINBERG and KENNETH ALAN WEINBERG, IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC 06-1941 BETTY WEINBERG, v. Petitioner, HARVEY JAY WEINBERG and KENNETH ALAN WEINBERG, Respondents. On Petition For Discretionary Review Of A Decision Of The

More information

IN THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT

IN 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 information

SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. PETITIONER, CASE NO.: SC Lower Tribunal No.: 5D05- AMENDED PETITIONER S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION

SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. PETITIONER, CASE NO.: SC Lower Tribunal No.: 5D05- AMENDED PETITIONER S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA ELIAS MORALES, ET AL. 4295 vs. PETITIONER, CASE NO.: SC06-1322 Lower Tribunal No.: 5D05- LETICIA J. MARQUES, RESPONDENT. / AMENDED PETITIONER S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION Elias Morales,

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

IN 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 information

SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA RESPONDENT S JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF

SUPREME 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 information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

IN 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 information

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT. v. Case No. 5D

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT. v. Case No. 5D IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED JAIRO RAFAEL NUNEZ AND GABRIEL ROGELIO

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA GEORGE GREEN, Petitioner/Appellant, vs. F.S.Ct. CASE NO. 4 TH DCA CASE NO. 4D05-2009 STATE OF FLORIDA, 4D05-2247 Respondent/Appellee. PETITIONER S BRIEF ON DISCRETIONARY

More information

IN 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. 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 information

JUL , L2J7," 1)11

JUL , L2J7, 1)11 .,. RECEIVED BLACKWATER RIVER CF JUL 28 2017., L2J7," 1)11 01srR1crcouRroFAPPEAL IN THE DisTrucT court of APPEAL of FLq~n~~~.'... ------~= AFTH DISTRICT Ftp TH DISTRICT INITIAL ~ V. Case No.: 7016-:5T7tP

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA S. CT. CASE NO. SC

IN 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 information

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA LAS PALMAS AT SAND LAKE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., CASE NO.: 2014-CV-000038-A-O Lower Case No.: 2014-CC-001945-O

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA. CASE NO. SC (4 th DCA 4D ) MALCOLM HOSWELL, Petitioner, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA. CASE NO. SC (4 th DCA 4D ) MALCOLM HOSWELL, Petitioner, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC05-1298 (4 th DCA 4D05-1624) MALCOLM HOSWELL, Petitioner, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. RESPONDENT'S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION LAURA FISHER ZIBURA

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

IN 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 information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. v. Case No. SC- IAN MANUEL L.T. No. 2D ON PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM THE SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. v. Case No. SC- IAN MANUEL L.T. No. 2D ON PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM THE SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA STATE OF FLORIDA, Petitioner, v. Case No. SC- IAN MANUEL L.T. No. 2D08-3494 Respondent. ON PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM THE SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA

More information

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JEFFREY WEISSMAN, ETC., NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED Appellant, v. Case

More information

. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA

. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA . IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA S CASE NO. SC12- CHARLES H. BURNS, as Personal Representative of the ESTATE OF ENRIQUE CASASNOVAS, Deceased, for the benefit of the ESTATE OF ENRIQUE

More information

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED SHAMROCK-SHAMROCK, INC., ETC., Petitioner,

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA RESPONDENT, CITY OF LARGO, ANSWER BRIEF ON JURISDICTION IN RESPONSE TO PETITIONER'S AMENDED BRIEF

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA RESPONDENT, CITY OF LARGO, ANSWER BRIEF ON JURISDICTION IN RESPONSE TO PETITIONER'S AMENDED BRIEF IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA MARY KATHERINE DAY-PETRANO CASE NO. SC05-1181 L.T. 2D04-4867 Petitioner, v. PINELLAS COUNTY AND CIRCUIT COURTS OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA; STATE OF FLORIDA;

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA. CASE NO. SC Lower Tribunal No: 1D

IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA. CASE NO. SC Lower Tribunal No: 1D IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC00-1710 Lower Tribunal No: 1D99-2426 FRANK C. WALKER, JR., M.D. and NORTH FLORIDA PEDIATRIC ASSOCIATES, INC., vs. Petitioners, VIRGINIA INSURANCE RECIPROCAL,

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA. CASE NO. SC Lower Tribunal No: 1D

IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA. CASE NO. SC Lower Tribunal No: 1D IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC00-1710 Lower Tribunal No: 1D99-2426 FRANK C. WALKER, JR., M.D. and NORTH FLORIDA PEDIATRIC ASSOCIATES, INC., vs. Petitioners, VIRGINIA INSURANCE RECIPROCAL,

More information

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED VIRON PAUL, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D15-866

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. v. Case No. SC LCN: 4D STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT'S AMENDED BRIEF ON JURISDICTION

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. v. Case No. SC LCN: 4D STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT'S AMENDED BRIEF ON JURISDICTION IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA WILLIE FRANK DAVIS, Petitioner, v. Case No. SC09-192 LCN: 4D08-4272 STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. RESPONDENT'S AMENDED BRIEF ON JURISDICTION BILL MCCOLLUM ATTORNEY GENERAL

More information

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA BETHANY ARREDONDO, v. Appellant, STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, CASE NO.: CVA1-09-41 Lower Case No.:

More information

Sherri L. Johnson and R. Laine Wilson of Dent & Johnson, Chartered, Sarasota, for Appellant.

Sherri L. Johnson and R. Laine Wilson of Dent & Johnson, Chartered, Sarasota, for Appellant. ED CRAPO, as Property Appraiser of Alachua County, Florida, v. Appellant, HCA, INC., a Delaware corporation, Appellee. / Opinion filed October 10, 2007. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT,

More information

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT. v. Case No. 5D

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT. v. Case No. 5D IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED STATE OF FLORIDA, Petitioner, v. Case No.

More information

Tracy S. Carlin of Mills & Carlin, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellant.

Tracy S. Carlin of Mills & Carlin, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellant. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA JUDITH SHAW, v. Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED. CASE NO. 1D04-4178

More information

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA David Olivencia, Daliz Financial Services, Inc., and LDL Accountant and Associates CPAS, LLC, CASE NO.: 2015-CA-9565-O

More information

Whipple' s Brief on Jurisdiction

Whipple' s Brief on Jurisdiction IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA WILLLIAM L. WHIPPLE Petitioner/Appellant V. STATE OF FLORIDA Respondent/Appellee ) ) ) Case No. SC13- ) ) OUTGOING LEGA.v ) PROVIDED TO TAYLOR C MAILING ON DATE (CONFINEMENT-ANNEX)

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC10-2419 PARAVANT, INC., 5 DCA CASE NO. 5D09-2143 a Florida Corporation and PARAVANT COMPUTER SYSTEMS, INC. A Florida Corporation, Petitioners; v.

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. DAPHNE ELAINE HENSON, Florida Second District Court of Appeal Case Appellee. Number: 2D /

IN 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 information

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT July Term 2013

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT July Term 2013 GERBER, J. DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT July Term 2013 ELROY A. PHILLIPS, Appellant, v. CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH, Appellee. No. 4D13-782 [January 8, 2014] The plaintiff

More information

CASE NO. 1D M. Kevin Hausfeld of Kevin Hausfeld, P.A., Pensacola, for Appellant.

CASE NO. 1D M. Kevin Hausfeld of Kevin Hausfeld, P.A., Pensacola, for Appellant. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA KIMBERLY D. MATHIS, v. Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE NO. 1D15-0820

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. v. Case No. SC STATE OF FLORIDA, DCA NO.: 2D

IN 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 information

THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

THE 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 information

CASE NO. 1D J. Stephen O'Hara, Jr., Jeffrey J. Humphries, Kathryn N. Slade of O'Hara Harlvorsen Humphries, PA, Jacksonville, for Petitioner.

CASE NO. 1D J. Stephen O'Hara, Jr., Jeffrey J. Humphries, Kathryn N. Slade of O'Hara Harlvorsen Humphries, PA, Jacksonville, for Petitioner. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA MELINDA BUTLER, v. Petitioner, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE NO. 1D14-1342

More information

CASE NO. 1D Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Donna A. Gerace, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

CASE NO. 1D Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Donna A. Gerace, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA WENDALL HALL, v. Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE NO. 1D12-899

More information

CV. In the Court of Appeals For the Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

CV. In the Court of Appeals For the Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 05-11-01687-CV ACCEPTED 225EFJ016746958 FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS DALLAS, TEXAS 12 February 26 P12:53 Lisa Matz CLERK In the Court of Appeals For the Fifth District of Texas at Dallas NEXION HEALTH AT DUNCANVILLE,

More information

Dwayne Roberts appeals an order denying petitions for writ of mandamus in

Dwayne Roberts appeals an order denying petitions for writ of mandamus in IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA DWAYNE E. ROBERTS, v. Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE NO. 1D14-4104

More information

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT IRIS MONTANEZ, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED Petitioner, v. Case No.

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. S.CtCaseNo.: D.C.A. Case No.: 1D MARK ALLEN BIR. Petitioner. STATE OF FLORIDA Respondent

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. S.CtCaseNo.: D.C.A. Case No.: 1D MARK ALLEN BIR. Petitioner. STATE OF FLORIDA Respondent />. A, PROVIDED TO CROSS CITY C.I. ON MAY 0 5 FOR MAI IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA S.CtCaseNo.: D.C.A. Case No.: 1D10-6806 A \ MARK ALLEN BIR Petitioner v. STATE OF FLORIDA Respondent On Discretionary

More information

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA FRANK J. BOTTIGLIERI, M.D., Petitioner, CASE NO.: 2015-CA-000426-O Lower Case No.: 2014-CC-000126-O v. LAW OFFICES

More information

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D. 2013

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D. 2013 Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D. 2013 Opinion filed July 17, 2103. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D12-1340 Lower Tribunal No. 10-44640

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA GERTRUDE PATRICK, PETITIONER, v. CASE NO. SC11-1466 DCA CASE NO. 1D10-966 LIONEL GATIEN, DO., AN INDIVIDUAL, AND THOMAS E. ABBEY, D.O, AN INDIVIDUAL, RESPONDENTS. / RESPONDENT

More information

Supreme Court of Florida

Supreme Court of Florida Supreme Court of Florida No. SC15-1279 IN RE: STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CIVIL CASES REPORT NO. 15-02. PER CURIAM. [April 21, 2016] The Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in Civil

More information

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED LAWRENCE BROCK AND LAURA BROCK, Appellants,

More information

Petitioner, Respondent.

Petitioner, Respondent. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORI l3 FEB 8 p CASE NO. SC12-1315 gy (4'h DCA 4D10-4525) NYKA O' CONNOR, Petitioner, Vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. RESPONDENT'S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION PAMELA JO

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA RONALDCARTER CASE NO. SC 3 ~ 3 Petitioner, DCA CASE NO. 5D12-4110 V. TOMMY BROZINO Respondant. Am»deà PETITIONERS JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF On Review from the District

More information

2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.

2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. 964 So.2d 713 Page 1 Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. v. Doe Fla.App. 3 Dist.,2007. District Court of Appeal of Florida,Third District. ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD., Petitioner, v. Jane DOE & Jane Doe, as

More information

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM 2001

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM 2001 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM 2001 ALEXANDER J. MILANICK and JOHN C. MILANICK, Appellants, v. Case No. 5D00-3171 TOWN OF BEVERLY BEACH, et al., Appellees.

More information

PETITONER'S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION

PETITONER'S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO: DISTRICT COURT CASE No: 4D13-717 MINERVA MARIE MENDEZ, Petitioner, 3 vs. INTEGON INDEMNITY CORPORATION, Respondent, ON APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

More information

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellant, v. Case No.

More information

In the Supreme Court of Florida

In 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 information

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM v. Case No. 5D07-349

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM v. Case No. 5D07-349 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2008 SARAH THOMAS, AS PLENARY GUARDIAN, ETC., Appellant, v. Case No. 5D07-349 FERNANDO LOPEZ, M.D., ET AL., Appellee.

More information

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM v. Case No. 5D

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM v. Case No. 5D IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2011 ERIN PARKINSON, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE, etc., Petitioner, v. Case No. 5D10-3716 KIA MOTORS CORPORATION, etc.,

More information

IN 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. 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 information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA RESPONDENT HENRY ANDREW HACSI S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA RESPONDENT HENRY ANDREW HACSI S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA CYNTHIA MARTIN, vs. Petitioner, HENRY ANDREW HACSI, CASE NO.: SC05-1857 L.T. Case No.: 5D04-2807 Respondent. / RESPONDENT HENRY ANDREW HACSI S BRIEF

More information

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA Northland Insurance Company, CASE NO.: 2015-CA-9686-O Appellant, v. S&M Transportation, Inc., Appellee. / Appeal from

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. CASE No. 4DCA No. 4D LOREEN I. KREIZINGER, P.A., a Florida Professional Association, Petitioner,

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. CASE No. 4DCA No. 4D LOREEN I. KREIZINGER, P.A., a Florida Professional Association, Petitioner, IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE No. 4DCA No. 4D04-2919 LOREEN I. KREIZINGER, P.A., a Florida Professional Association, Petitioner, v. SHELDON J. SCHLESINGER, P.A., a Florida Professional Association,

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

IN 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 information

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT. v. Case No. 5D17-45

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT. v. Case No. 5D17-45 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED DR. AMANDA SAUNDERS, Appellant, v. Case

More information

Holmes Regional Medical Center v. Dumigan, 39 Fla. Law Weekly D2570 (Fla. 5 th DCA December 12, 2014):

Holmes Regional Medical Center v. Dumigan, 39 Fla. Law Weekly D2570 (Fla. 5 th DCA December 12, 2014): Clark Fountain welcomes referrals of personal injury, products liability, medical malpractice and other cases that require extensive time and resources. We handle cases throughout the state and across

More information

Supreme Court of Florida

Supreme Court of Florida Supreme Court of Florida No. SC01-1402 PER CURIAM. WALTER J. GRIFFIN, Petitioner, vs. D.R. SISTUENCK, et al., Respondents. [May 2, 2002] Walter J. Griffin petitions this Court for writ of mandamus seeking

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Jerome S. Rydell and Dale E. Krueger, individually and derivatively, on behalf of the shareholders of Surf Tech International, Inc., and Sigma Financial Corporation, a Michigan

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC BRIAN MEATON

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC BRIAN MEATON IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC08-1524 Petitioner, BRIAN MEATON vs. CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG, FLORIDA Respondent. \ JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF JAMES A. SHEEHAN, ESQUIRE JAMES A. SHEEHAN

More information