IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
|
|
- Anissa McDonald
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA PINES LEARNING CENTER, INC., SC CASE NO.: a Florida corporation, d/b/a CAMBRIDGE DCA CASE NO.: 4D LEARNING CENTRE, v. Appellant/Petitioner, MARK SHIPMAN and SANDRA SHIPMAN, Individually and as Personal Representatives of the Estate of Alexandra Rose Shipman, deceased, Appellees/Respondents. / APPELLANT/PETITIONER S AMENDED BRIEF ON JURISDICTION DONALD W. ST. DENIS, ESQUIRE Florida Bar No.: BENJAMIN C. MOORE, ESQUIRE Florida Bar No.: ST. DENIS & DAVEY, P.A Riverplace Blvd., Suite 101 Jacksonville, Florida (904) (904) Facsimile
2 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES i STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND OF THE FACTS.. 1 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT... 3 ARGUMENT AND CITATION OF AUTHORITIES 4 ISSUE: I ISSUE: II THE FOURTH DISTRICT S DECISION CONFLICTS WITH THIS COURT S DECISION IN FRAZIER v. SEABOARD SYS. R.R., INC. AND THE THIRD DISTRICT S DECISION IN VOLUMES IN VALUE, INC. v. BUY MAIL INT L, INC... 4 THE PROPER BASIS FOR RELIEF FROM AN ORDER DENYING A MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL IS SET FORTH IN RULE AND 1.540, NEITHER OF WHICH WERE INVOKED BY THE PARENTS OR THE TRIAL COURT BEFORE THE ORDER WAS VACATED. 5 A. The trial court did not have a basis to vacate the Order under rule B. The trial court did not have a basis to vacate the Order under rule i. The Fourth District s description of the Order as inadvertent and unintended was erroneous and did not qualify as a clerical error under rule 1.540(a). 7 ii. The trial court had no basis to vacate the Order on its own initiative under rule 1.540(b) because there was no record of fraud.. 8
3 ISSUE: III A STRICT IMPLEMENTATION OF RULE AND IS AN IMPORTANT AND COMPELLING POLICY IN ORDER TO ENSURE AN EARLY FINAL END TO LITIGATION... 9 CONCLUSION.. 10 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE.. 11
4 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ACA Brandon, Inc. v. Hooyman, 823 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002).6 Bolton v. Bolton, 787 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). 6 Bortz v. Bortz, 675 So. 2d 622 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) 7 Bustos v. Fleet, 461 So. 2d 1039 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), affirmed, 482 So. 2d 1368 (Fla. 1968). 10 Curbelo v. Ullman, 571 So. 2d 443 (Fla. 1990)... 7 Francisco and B & E Found, Inc. v. Victory Marine Ship, Inc., 486 So. 2d 1386 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986).. 5, 10 Frazier v. Seaboard Sys. R.R., Inc., 508 So. 2d 345 (Fla. 1987).. 2, 3, 4, 9 Padot v. Padot, 891 So. 2d 1079 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). 8 Shelby Mut. Ins. Co. v. Pearson, 236 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1970).. 6 State of Fla. v. Morris, 359 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978).. 6 Town of Hialeah Gardens v. Hendry, 376 So. 2d 1162 (Fla. 1979). 7 Volumes in Value, Inc. v. Buy Mail Int l, Inc., 177 So. 2d 511 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965) 2, 3, 4, 5, 9 Fla. R. Civ. P passim Fla. R. Civ. P (a) passim Fla. R. Civ. P (b) passim Fla. R. Civ. P passim Fla. R. Civ. P (b). 5 Fla. R. Civ. P (d). 5 i
5 STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND OF THE FACTS The parents (Appellees/Respondents) of a young student filed a wrongful death action against the School (Appellant/Petitioner). The case went to trial and the jury returned a verdict in favor of the School. The parents filed a Motion for New Trial on November 7, 2005 and the trial court entered Final Judgment for the School on November 15, The trial court entered an Order Denying the Motion for New Trial on May 22, Eighteen days later the parents filed a Motion to Vacate Order Denying Motion for New Trial ( Motion to Vacate ) asking the trial court to rehear and reconsider the Order Denying the Motion for New Trial. The trial court granted the Motion, vacated the Order and subsequently entered an Order granting a new trial without stating the grounds. The School appealed. The Fourth District rendered two decisions. In the first decision rendered on April 16, the Fourth District referred to the trial court s original May 22, 2006 Order Denying the Motion for New Trial as inadvertent and unintended thus affirming the trial court s decision to vacate this Order even though the trial court did not have a jurisdictional basis to vacate this Order as set forth in Florida Rule of Civil Procedure and The Fourth District relinquished the case back to the trial court and requested that the 1 Pines Learning Centre, Inc. v. Mark Shipman and Sandra Shipman, 979 So. 2d 1143, 1144, n.2 (Fla. 4th DCA April 16, 2008) attached to the Appendix as A-1.
6 trial court specify reasons for entering the second Order Granting the Motion for New Trial while ignoring the effect of the inadvertent and unintended Order. The decision was made final on July 2, 2008 when the Fourth District affirmed the trial court s Amended Order Granting the Motion New Trial. See, Pines Learning Centre, Inc. v. Shipman, 988 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). The Fourth District would not have arrived at this decision but for its April 16, 2008 decision to disregard the trial court s May 22, 2006 Order Denying the Motion for New Trial by classifying it as inadvertent and unintended. The April 16, 2008 decision could not be appealed since the Fourth District relinquished the case back to the trial court. On July 2, 2008, the Fourth District s ruling made the April 16, 2008 decision final and appealable. The direct and express conflict resides in the Fourth District s April 16, 2008 decision wherein the Fourth District classified the trial court s May 22, 2006 Order Denying the Motion for New Trial as inadvertent and unintended and affirmed the trial court s decision to vacate this Order without a jurisdictional basis grounded in fraud or clerical error. See A-1. This decision directly conflicts with decisions from the Florida Supreme Court and Third District which hold that an order denying a motion for new trial should not be vacated or reheard absent fraud or clerical error. Frazier v. Seaboard Sys. R.R., Inc., 508 So. 2d 345, 347 (Fla. 1987); Volumes in Value, Inc. v. Buy Mail Int l, Inc., 177 So. 2d 511, 512 (Fla. 3d
7 DCA 1965). SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT I. The Fourth District upheld the trial court s Order Vacating the Order Denying the Motion for New Trial pursuant to the parents request that the trial court reconsider and rehear the Motion for New Trial without a finding of fraud or clerical error providing a basis for vacating the Order. The Fourth District s decision is in direct conflict with the Florida Supreme Court in Frazier and the Third District in Volumes in Value holding that an order denying a motion for new trial should not be vacated or reheard absent fraud or clerical error. Frazier, 508 So. 2d at 347; Volumes in Value, 177 So. 2d at 512. II. The Fourth District wrongly affirmed the trial court s Order Vacating the Order Denying the Motion for New Trial because the trial court did not provide a basis for relief under rule and/or There was no basis for relief under rule since the trial court previously denied the first Motion for New Trial and was outside the ten-day time limit to modify or vacate the Order. There was no basis for relief under rule since there was no record of clerical mistake, inadvertence, excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence or fraud. Fla. R. Civ. P (a) & (b). The Fourth District s assertion that the Order Denying the Motion for New Trial was inadvertent and unintended was erroneous. The vacating of the Order changed the substantive outcome of the case and was not
8 clerical in nature. There was no record of fraud on the court allowing for relief under 1.540(b). III. It is necessary that this Court exercise its discretionary jurisdiction and resolve the conflict as it is a compelling policy to ensure an early final end to litigation. ARGUMENT AND CITATIONS OF AUTHORITIES I. THE FOURTH DISTRICT S DECISION CONFLICTS WITH THIS COURT S DECISION IN FRAZIER v. SEABOARD SYS. R.R., INC. AND THE THIRD DISTRICT S DECISION IN VOLUMES IN VALUE, INC. v. BUY MAIL INT L, INC. The Fourth District wrongfully affirmed the trial court s Order Vacating the Order Denying the Motion for New Trial. The Fourth District s decision directly conflicts with this Court s decision in Frazier where this Court held [t]he overwhelming weight of authority in Florida has long adhered to the rule that a new-trial order is not subject to a motion for rehearing absent fraud or clerical error. Frazier, 508 So. 2d at 347. There was no fraud or clerical error providing the trial court with a basis to vacate the Order Denying the Motion for New Trial. Likewise, the Fourth District s decision directly conflicts with the Third District s decision in Volumes in Value. Similar to the procedural history of the case at bar, in Volumes in Value the defendants filed a motion for new trial after the jury returned a verdict and the trial court entered an order denying the motion. Volumes in Value, 177 So. 2d at 512. The defendants filed a motion to vacate the
9 order denying the motion for new trial and the trial court entered final judgment and thereafter entered a new order vacating the order denying the motion for a new trial. Id. The Third District reversed the trial court and held that defendants motion to vacate the order was in reality a motion for rehearing of the order denying the motion for new trial and the trial court proceeded in a procedurally unauthorized manner. Id. This Court should accept jurisdiction to resolve the conflict. II. THE PROPER BASIS FOR RELIEF FROM AN ORDER DENYING A MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL IS SET FORTH IN RULE AND 1.540, NEITHER OF WHICH WERE INVOKED BY THE PARENTS OR THE TRIAL COURT BEFORE THE ORDER WAS VACATED The Fourth District wrongly affirmed the trial court s Order Vacating the Order Denying the Motion for New Trial which did not invoke rule and/or as the basis for relief from the Order. There are two mechanisms by which a trial court can reconsider and correct its prior decision denying a motion for new trial. The first mechanism is set forth in rule This rule provides the trial court with an opportunity to consider matters which it overlooked or failed to consider and to correct any error if it becomes convinced that it has erred as long as the motion is brought within ten days of the return of the jury verdict, or, if the ruling is made on the court s own initiative, within ten days of entry of the judgment. See Fla. R. Civ. P (b) & (d); see also Francisco and B & E
10 Found, Inc. v. Victory Marine Ship, Inc., 486 So. 2d 1386, 1389 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). The second mechanism is the motion for relief from judgment, decrees or orders as set forth in rule Rule provides relief for reasons of clerical mistakes, inadvertence, excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence and fraud among others. Fla. R. Civ. P (a) & (b). A. The trial court did not have a basis to vacate the Order under rule The trial court denied the parents first Motion for New Trial. After denying the Motion for New Trial, the trial court lost jurisdiction to consider any further motions except for motions filed under rule since the ten-day time frame in which a court may vacate or modify an order under rule had passed. Bolton v. Bolton, 787 So. 2d 237, 239 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); see also Shelby Mut. Ins. Co. v. Pearson, 236 So. 2d 1, 3-4 (Fla. 1970); State of Fla. v. Morris, 359 So. 2d 478, 480 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978) ( When the trial court has considered on its merits a timely motion for new trial, and thereafter enters its order denying such motion, the court has no authority to entertain or consider a subsequently filed motion or petition for rehearing which merely asks the court to reconsider the same matter. ). The trial court did not have jurisdiction to consider the parents Motion because it was a request for the trial court to rehear and reconsider its previous ruling. Rule does not authorize the filing of a motion for rehearing or a supplemental motion pertaining to an order denying a motion for new trial. See,
11 ACA Brandon, Inc. v. Hooyman, 823 So. 2d 874, 875 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) ( The Florida Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for supplemental motions for new trial or for motions for rehearing of orders denying motions for new trial [o]nce the trial court denied [the] motion for new trial, it had no authority to rehear the matter. ); see also Volumes in Value, Inc., 177 So. 2d at 512. B. The trial court did not have a basis to vacate the Order under rule Rule was intended to provide relief from judgments, decrees or orders only under a limited set of circumstances and was not intended to serve as a substitute for the new trial mechanism prescribed by rule nor as a substitute for appellate review of judicial error. Curbelo v. Ullman, 571 So. 2d 443, 444 (Fla. 1990). i. The Fourth District s classification of the Order as inadvertent and unintended is erroneous and did not qualify as a clerical error under rule 1.540(a) Section (a) allows a trial court to correct clerical mistakes in judgments, decrees, or other parts of the record on its own initiative but does not allow for corrections that change the substantive outcome of the case. See, e.g., Town of Hialeah Gardens v. Hendry, 376 So. 2d 1162, 1164 (Fla. 1979) ( The clerical mistakes referred to in section (a) of Rule include only errors or mistakes arising from accidental slip or omission, and not errors or mistakes in the substance of what is decided by the judgment or order, the latter of which must be
12 corrected pursuant to Rule 1.540(b). ); see also Bortz v. Bortz, 675 So. 2d 622, 624 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (holding rule 1.540(a) is not designed to permit substantive changes in final orders, especially changes which reverse the outcome ). There was no clerical error cited in the Order Vacating the Order Denying the Motion for New Trial, nor was rule even referenced in the Order. The Fourth District s classification of the Order as inadvertent and unintended placed the trial court s decision under the auspices of section (a) as a clerical mistake. See A-1. The vacating of the Order did not merely modify the Order for a clerical mistake but completely changed the substantive outcome of the case by awarding a new trial to the parents. Similarly, in Padot v. Padot, the Second District vacated the trial court s clarification order and held that a clarification order which changed the substance of a prior order on rehearing was not an authorized clerical correction under rule and the trial court had no basis to vacate the order under rule or So. 2d 1079, (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). For this reason, the trial court did not have grounds under section (a) to vacate the Order Denying the Motion for New Trial and the Fourth District s affirmation of this Order conflicts with this Court and the Third District. ii. The trial court had no basis to vacate the Order on its own initiative under rule 1.540(b) because there was no record of fraud Rule 1.540(b) mandates that a party seeking relief from the judgment or
13 order must file a motion invoking section (b). The parents Motion to Vacate did not invoke sections (a) or (b). Contrarily, the parents specifically represented to the trial court during the hearing on the Motion that their Motion to Vacate was not being brought under rule (PR4 18, 32). 2 They were seeking to have the trial court rehear and reconsider the Order Denying the Motion for New Trial without invoking rule contrary to Frazier. Under section (b), the trial court does not have the ability to entertain an independent action on its own initiative to relieve a party from the order denying a new trial except in cases involving fraud. The trial court acknowledged that there was no record of fraud. (PR4 18). The trial court did not have a basis to vacate its order under section (b). The Fourth District s affirmation of the trial court is erroneous and in direct conflict with this Court s prior decision rendered in Frazier and the Third District s decision in Volumes in Value and it is imperative that this Court accept jurisdiction to resolve the conflict. III. A STRICT IMPLEMENTATION OF RULE AND IS AN IMPORTANT AND COMPELLING POLICY IN ORDER TO ENSURE AN EARLY FINAL END TO LITIGATION The School urges this Court to consider the compelling policy reasons justifying the exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction to review this case and 2 PR is the prior record on appeal.
14 resolve the conflict because it has the potential of affecting all litigation involving motions for new trials. The issue in this case involving a trial court s Order Vacating an Order Denying a Motion for New Trial without a basis under rule and without invoking rule is one of exceptional importance. The goal of the implementation of restrictions on the authority of trial courts promulgated by this Court in rule and is to ensure an early final end to litigation. Francisco, 486 So. 2d at Without these restrictions, this goal would be thwarted and litigants and/or trial courts could vacate an order for any reason resulting in a considerable impact on the administration of justice. See Bustos v. Fleet, 461 So. 2d 1039 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), aff d, 482 So. 2d 1368 (Fla. 1968). As the Third District held: [a] litigant is not only entitled to have his cause decided; he is entitled to know that an order deciding it is final and will not be disturbed, except on appeal, or under the conditions prescribed by the rules. Francisco, 486 So. 2d at Conclusion For the above reasons, Petitioner urges the court to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to accept the case and resolve the conflict set forth above.
15 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was furnished by Federal Express, on this 10th day of November, 2008, to Pamela A. Chamberlin, Esquire, Mitrani, Rynor & Adamsky, P.A., 2200 SunTrust International Center, One Southeast Third Avenue, Miami, FL 33131, and Michael Schiffrin, Esquire, Michael Schiffrin & Associates, P.A., 9130 S. Dadeland Boulevard, Suite 1109, 2 Datran Center, Miami, FL DONALD W. ST. DENIS, ESQUIRE Florida Bar No.: BENJAMIN C. MOORE, ESQUIRE Florida Bar No.: ST. DENIS & DAVEY, P.A Riverplace Blvd., Suite 101 Jacksonville, Florida (904) (904) Facsimile CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE I CERTIFY that the foregoing Brief on Jurisdiction of Appellant/Petitioner complies with the font requirement of Fla. R. App. P (2) and is printed in Times New Roman 14 font. Attorney
IN 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 CASE NO. SC CHRISTINE BAUER and THOMAS BAUER, Petitioners, ONE WEST BANK, FSB, Respondent.
Filing # 17071819 Electronically Filed 08/13/2014 05:11:43 PM RECEIVED, 8/13/2014 17:13:41, John A. Tomasino, Clerk, Supreme Court IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC14-1575 CHRISTINE BAUER and
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC v. DCA CASE NO. 4D
CCC INVESTMENTS I, LLC, d/b/a TIFFANY HOUSE BY MARRIOTT, a foreign corporation; et al., IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Defendants/Petitioners CASE NO. SC06-1807 v. DCA CASE NO. 4D05-1990 ALEXANDER POLLOCK,
More informationBRIEF ON JURISDICTION OF BEAL BANK, S.S.B., INC. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC BEAL BANK, S.S.B., INC.,
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC02-2545 BEAL BANK, S.S.B., INC., Petitioner, vs. IRWIN J. and MARCIA M. SHERWIN, Respondent. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC DCA CASE NO. 3D THE STATE OF FLORIDA, Petitioner, -vs- MAXIMILIANO ROMERO, Respondent.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC05-1141 DCA CASE NO. 3D03-2169 THE STATE OF FLORIDA, Petitioner, -vs- MAXIMILIANO ROMERO, Respondent. ON PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE DISTRICT COURT
More informationIN THE SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL IN AND FOR THE STATE OF FLORIDA
IN THE SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL IN AND FOR THE STATE OF FLORIDA RICK KOIS, v. Appellant, VERICREST FINANCIAL, INC., Case No.: 2D12- L.T. No.: 2011-CA-00060 WH Appellee. / ON APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
Electronically Filed 05/20/2013 12:08:02 PM ET RECEIVED, 5/20/2013 12:08:39, Thomas D. Hall, Clerk, Supreme Court IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC13-782 L.T. Case Nos. 4DII-3838; 502008CA034262XXXXMB
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA DIGICAST NEW MEDIA, INC., Petitioner, -vs- FIERA.COM, INC., Respondent. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SCO3-418 THIRD DISTRICT CASE NO. 3D02-441 LOWER TRIBUNAL NO. 01-24419 CA 22 DIGICAST NEW MEDIA, INC., Petitioner, -vs- FIERA.COM, INC., Respondent. APPEAL FROM
More informationFLORIDA SUPREME COURT CASE NO. SC (Lower Tribunal Case 3D ) RENE CARABALLO, Petitioner,
FLORIDA SUPREME COURT CASE NO. SC07-1264 (Lower Tribunal Case 3D05-2512) RENE CARABALLO, Petitioner, v. LAZCAR INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Florida Corporation, Respondent. PETITIONER=S INITIAL BRIEF ON JURISDICTION
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA. Supreme Court Case No. SC th DCA Case No. 4D RESPONDENTS BRIEF ON JURISDICTION
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA ALEXANDER SCHULTZ vs.. Petitioner Supreme Court Case No. SC04-2318 4th DCA Case No. 4D03-3286 WALDEMAR K. SCHICKEDANZ et al., Respondents / RESPONDENTS BRIEF
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA ORMOND BEACH ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, ET AL., Petitioners, Case No. SC03-371 v. CITATION MORTGAGE, LTD., ET AL., Respondents. / RESPONSE TO PETITIONERS
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. CASE No. SC07-26 BRAD HIGGINBOTHAM. Petitioner. vs. TIMOTHY BOZEMAN. Respondent
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE No. SC07-26 BRAD HIGGINBOTHAM Petitioner vs. TIMOTHY BOZEMAN Respondent AMENDED RESPONDENT S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION Kenneth W. Sukhia FBN 266256 Conwell Sukhia & Kirkpatrick,
More informationSupreme Court of Florida
Supreme Court of Florida PER CURIAM. No. SC11-697 ROMAN PINO, Petitioner, vs. THE BANK OF NEW YORK, etc., et al., Respondents. [December 8, 2011] The issue we address is whether Florida Rule of Appellate
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Case No. SC BEST DIVERSIFIED, INC. and PETER HUFF. Petitioners, vs.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Case No. SC06-1823 BEST DIVERSIFIED, INC. and PETER HUFF Petitioners, vs. OSCEOLA COUNTY, FLORIDA and STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, Respondents.
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA 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 informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT CASE NO. 3D Lower Tribunal Case No.: CA-01
E-Copy Received Jul 7, 2014 10:25 PM IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT CASE NO. 3D14-521 Lower Tribunal Case No.: 12-48683-CA-01 FOCHE MORTGAGE, LLC, a Florida Corporation.
More informationCASE NO. SC L.T. CASE NO. 4D IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CATHERINE STANEK-COUSINS, Petitioner, STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent.
CASE NO. SC05-1987 L.T. CASE NO. 4D05-1129 ========================================================== IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CATHERINE STANEK-COUSINS, Petitioner, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent.
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Supreme Court Case No. SC On Appeal from the Fourth Judicial District. Case No 4D
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Supreme Court Case No. SC06-2003 On Appeal from the Fourth Judicial District Case No 4D06-1222 JOSEPH MAZZIOTTI AND LOUIS MAZZIOTTI, Petitioners, v. PURE H20 BIO-TECHNOLOGIES.
More informationNOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT DAVID M. DRESDNER, M.D., P.A., a ) Florida professional service
More informationIN 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 informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC07-1672 PETER SPOREA, ET AL., Petitioners, vs. CITY OF POMPANO BEACH, FLORIDA, Respondent. RESPONDENT S AMENDED ANSWER BRIEF ON JURISDICTION On Appeal from the
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. CASE NO. 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. 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 APPEAL FROM THE THIRD DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS PETITIONER S JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CORAL BAY SECTION C HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, Petitioner. Case No.: 3D07-2315 MIAMI-DADE COUNTY Respondent Lower Tribunal Case No.: 2007-5354-CA-01 APPEAL FROM THE THIRD DISTRICT
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA PERRY TANKSLEY, Petitioner, vs. 214 MAIN STREET CORP. and 3B REALTY NORTH, INC., Sup. Ct. Case No: SC07-272 Second DCA Case No: 2D06-768 Respondents. *********************************/
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
Filing # 19562225 Electronically Filed 10/20/2014 11:30:55 AM RECEIVED, 10/20/2014 11:34:02, John A. Tomasino, Clerk, Supreme Court IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC14-1845 Third District Case
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. v. Case No.: SC L.T. No.: 1D /3350
GRACE ERIS and KAY C. HOWERTON, Appellants/Petitioners, THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA v. Case No.: SC04-2370 L.T. No.: 1D02-0202/3350 DANNY ATKINS and JAN (consolidated) WALKER, Appellees/Respondents. ON
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 informationSUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA PETITIONER, EMILY HALE S JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF
SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA EMILY HALE, Petitioner, -vs- DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, STATE OF FLORIDA, Case No.: SC08-371 L.T. Case No.: 98-107CA Respondent. ********************************************** PETITIONER,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA DAVID M. POLEN, v. ROSA POLEN, Petitioner, Respondent. / CASE NO. SC06-1226 4 TH DCA CASE NO. 4D06-1002 AMENDED ANSWER BRIEF ON JURISDICTION Respectfully submitted, JOEL
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. 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 STATE OF FLORIDA RESPONDENT S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION
IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA ROBERT J. CROUCH, Petitioner, v. CASE NO.: SC 08 2164 THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. / RESPONDENT S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION Harold R. Mardenborough,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CARLOS VALDES v. Petitioner, SC Case: SC04-199 First DCA Case: 1D02-4026 INTEGRATED ADMINISTRATORS and WAL-MART STORE #6020, Respondent. / On discretionary review from the
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF 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 informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. Second District Court of Appeal Case No. 2D10-332
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. Second District Court of Appeal Case No. 2D10-332 CITY OF TAMPA, FLORIDA, a Florida Municipal Corporation, Petitioner, vs. CITY NATIONAL BANK OF FLORIDA, and CITIVEST
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA BRIEF ON JURISDICTION OF RESPONDENT, EDWARD A. SCHILLING
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA MARIA HERRERA, Petitioner, Case No.: SC07-839 v. EDWARD A. SCHILLING Respondent. BRIEF ON JURISDICTION OF RESPONDENT, EDWARD A. SCHILLING On Discretionary Review from the
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. 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 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 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 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 CASE NO.: SC L.T. NOs: 4D , 4D THE SCHOOL BOARD OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC07-2402 L.T. NOs: 4D07-2378, 4D07-2379 THE SCHOOL BOARD OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA Petitioner, v. SURVIVORS CHARTER SCHOOLS, INC., Respondent. On Discretionary
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 FLORIDA. v. Case No. SC L.T. No. 3D PHILIP MORRIS USA INC.,
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA KAREN CAPONE, etc., Petitioner, v. Case No. SC11-849 L.T. No. 3D09-3331 PHILIP MORRIS USA INC., Respondent. ON REVIEW FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL THIRD DISTRICT, STATE
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA JUNIOR JOSEPH, ) ) Appellee/Petitioner, ) ) 5th DCA Case No. 5D09-1356 ) ) Supreme Court Case No. SC11-179 STATE OF FLORIDA,) ) Appellant/Respondent. ) ) APPEAL
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA 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 FLORIDA. v. Lower Tribunal No. 2D ON PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY JURISDICTION BASED ON ALLEGED CONFLICT OF DECISIONS
Electronically Filed 07/31/2013 04:44:07 PM ET RECEIVED, 7/31/2013 16:48:32, Thomas D. Hall, Clerk, Supreme Court IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA ROBERT VON GOETZMAN Petitioner/Pro Se SC No. 13-9999 v.
More informationIN Tl le SUPREME COURT FOR THE STATE OF FLORIDA. CASE NO. SCl3-153 L. T. CASR NOS.; 4DI J-4801, CA COCE
E]cctronically Filed 07/01/2013 (M:47:23 PM ET RECEIVED. 7/]/2013 l6:48:35. Thomas D. Hall. Clerk. Supreme Court IN Tl le SUPREME COURT FOR THE STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SCl3-153 L. T. CASR NOS.; 4DI J-4801,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. Second District Court of Appeal Case Number: 2D L.T. No. 05-CA Parrot Cove Marina, LLC
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. Second District Court of Appeal Case Number: 2D06-4582 L.T. No. 05-CA-2397 Parrot Cove Marina, LLC Petitioner, vs. Duncan Seawall Dock & Boatlift, Inc. Respondent.
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA PETITIONER S BRIEF ON THE MERITS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Case No.: SC07-2095 Lower Tribunal No: 5D06-3875 AmerUs Life Insurance Co. Plaintiff/Petitioner, vs. Michael H. Lait and Michael H. Lait, P.A., Defendants/Respondents. /
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC STATE OF FLORIDA, Petitioner, vs. ERIC S. SMITH, Respondent.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC07-901 STATE OF FLORIDA, Petitioner, vs. ERIC S. SMITH, Respondent. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ON PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO. Court of Appeal s Case No.: 4D JAN KRZYNOWEK, Petitioner, -vs- TZVI SCHACHTER
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO. Court of Appeal s Case No.: 4D06-2266 JAN KRZYNOWEK, Petitioner, -vs- TZVI SCHACHTER Respondent. ON PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE FOURTH
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA MARK ONDREY, vs. Appellant/Petitioner, FLORENCE PATTERSON, as Personal Representative of the Estate of JOHN WILLIAM PATTERSON, deceased. Case No.: SC04-961
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. v. CASE NO. SC L.T. NO. 1D STATE OF FLORIDA,
Filing # 11092791 Electronically Filed 03/07/2014 02:35:35 PM RECEIVED, 3/7/2014 14:38:38, John A Tomasino, Clerk, Supreme Court IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA NOEL PLANK, Petitioner, v CASE NO SC14-414
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC INTERNATIONAL UNION OF POLICE ASSOCIATIONS, Petitioner, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC06-1148 INTERNATIONAL UNION OF POLICE ASSOCIATIONS, Petitioner, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. On Petition for Discretionary Review of the Opinion of the First
More informationIn the Supreme Court of Florida A.K. GIFT SHOP, INC., Petitioner,
In the Supreme Court of Florida CASE NO. SC12-362 A.K. GIFT SHOP, INC., Petitioner, v. DTRS INTERCONTINENTAL MIAMI, LLC, as Assignee of Intercontinental Hotels Corporation, Respondent. ON PETITION FOR
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF
THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA JOHNEE ANN ALLE HIRCHERT CASE NO.: SC11-1673 v. Petitioner, 5DCA#:5D09-3054 HIRCHERT FAMILY TRUST Respondent / 9 th Judicial Circuit Court Case No.: CI-06-OC-1397 PETITIONER
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA 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 informationSUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Case No. SC04- L.T. Case No. 3D CITY OF MIAMI. Petitioner. vs. SIDNEY S. WELLMAN, ET AL.
SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Case No. SC04- L.T. Case No. 3D01-3050 CITY OF MIAMI Petitioner vs. SIDNEY S. WELLMAN, ET AL. Respondents RESPONDENTS ANSWER BRIEF TO PETITIONER S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION ON DISCRETIONARY
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. v. CASE NO. SC ON DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
Electronically Filed 05/17/2013 11:04:14 AM ET RECEIVED, 5/17/2013 11:08:35, Thomas D. Hall, Clerk, Supreme Court IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA MARK ERIC OSTERBACK, Petitioner, v. CASE NO. SC13-812 STATE
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 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. MIRACLE CENTER ASSOCIATES, etc., Petitioner,
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC05-884 MIRACLE CENTER ASSOCIATES, etc., Petitioner, vs. SCANDINAVIAN HEALTH SPA, INC., etc., Respondent. ON APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC ALVIN LEWIS, Petitioner. vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondents. PETITIONER'S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC05-1605 ALVIN LEWIS, Petitioner vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondents. PETITIONER'S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION Seeking Discretionary Review from the District Court of
More informationTHE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT CASE NO. SC LOUIS R. MONTELLO, Petitioner, SONIA JUCHT MONTELLO, Respondent PETITIONER S REPLY BRIEF ON THE MERITS
THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT CASE NO. SC06-2072 LOUIS R. MONTELLO, Petitioner, v. SONIA JUCHT MONTELLO, Respondent PETITIONER S REPLY BRIEF ON THE MERITS On Appeal From the Third District Court of Appeal
More informationIN 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 informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO: LT CASE NO: 3D WALTER WIESENBERG. Petitioner. vs. COSTA CROCIERE S.p.A. Respondent.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO: 10-1256 LT CASE NO: 3D07-555 WALTER WIESENBERG Petitioner vs. COSTA CROCIERE S.p.A. Respondent. On petition for review from the Third District Court of Appeal RESPONDENT
More informationSUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC
SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC11-2146 MARILYN ANN NUNES, Personal Representative of the Estate of KATHLEEN L. PHILLIPS and MARILYN ANN NUNES, individually Petitioners vs. ALLSTATE INVESTMENT PROPERTIES,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. CONSTRUCTION INC., a Florida corporation, L.T. No. 4D07-391
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA PADULA & WADSWORTH CASE NO. SC08-1558 CONSTRUCTION INC., a Florida corporation, L.T. No. 4D07-391 Petitioner, v. PORT-A-WELD, INC., a Florida corporation, Respondent. ON
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT 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 OF FLORIDA. Case No.: SC DCA Case No.: 4D L.T. Case No.: CDDR FA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Case No.: SC05-1815 DCA Case No.: 4D04-651 L.T. Case No.: CDDR 02-10768 FA CARLIE CARGILE-SCHRAGE, Petitioner/Appellant, v. DONALD BRUCE SCHRAGE, Respondent/Appellee. On
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC DCA CASE NO. 3D JAMAR ANTWAN HILL, Petitioner, -vs- THE STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC08-929 DCA CASE NO. 3D06-468 JAMAR ANTWAN HILL, Petitioner, -vs- THE STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. ON PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE DISTRICT COURT
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA Case Number: SC RESPONDENT S JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA Case Number: SC09-1722 Westgate Tabernacle Petitioners, vs. 4 th DCA CASE No. 4D07-3792 PALM BEACH COUNTY, Respondent. RESPONDENT S JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF Robert
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. OCEAN REEF CLUB, INC., a Florida corporation, CHERRYE WILCZEWSKI and LAURA LEON,
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC12-2450 S OCEAN REEF CLUB, INC., a Florida corporation, Petitioner, v. CHERRYE WILCZEWSKI and LAURA LEON, Respondents. RESPONDENTS' BRIEF ON JURISDICTION By:
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT 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
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA LESTER SMULL, Petitioner, CASE NO.: 4 TH DCA CASE NO.:4D02-1818 v. THE TOWN OF JUPITER, a Florida municipal corporation Respondent. / PETITIONER S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. CASE NO. Fifth District Case No. 5D03-135; 5D03-138; 5D03-139; 5D03-140; 5D03-141; 5D03-142
ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, vs. Petitioner, BARNES FAMILY CHIROPRACTIC, ETC. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. Fifth District Case No. 5D03-135; 5D03-138; 5D03-139; 5D03-140; 5D03-141; 5D03-142
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 MARK TETZLAFF Petitioner, vs. FLORIDA UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMM N Respondent.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Case No. SC-04-591 MARK TETZLAFF Petitioner, vs. FLORIDA UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMM N Respondent. ON PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Petitioner, v. Supreme Court Case No.: SC Lower Tribunal Case No.:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA JOSEPH R. REDNER, Petitioner, v. Supreme Court Case No.: SC03-1612 Lower Tribunal Case No.: 96-02652 CITY OF TAMPA, Respondent. PETITIONER S FIRST AMENDED JURISDICTIONAL
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. CASE NO.: SCl AIMEE OSMULSKI, L.T. Case No.: 2D L.T. Case No.: CI-11
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SCl2-1624 AIMEE OSMULSKI, L.T. Case No.: 2D10-5962 L.T. Case No.: 08-11945-CI-11 v. Petitioner, OLDSMAR FINE WINE, INC. a/k/a LUEKENS BIG TOWN LIQUOR, INC, d/b/a
More informationThird District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed November 1, 2017. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D17-71 Consolidated: 3D16-2901 Lower Tribunal Nos.
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
Filing # 15572814 Electronically Filed 07/03/2014 05:32:02 PM RECEIVED, 7/3/2014 17:33:34, John A. Tomasino, Clerk, Supreme Court MOHAMMAD ANWAR FARID AL-SALEH, IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.
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.: 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 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. SC12- DEMARIOUS CALDWELL, Petitioner, - versus - STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC12- DEMARIOUS CALDWELL, Petitioner, - versus - STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. ON APPEAL FROM THE FOURTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL CASE NO. 4D10-3345 RESPONDENT
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC Petitioner, Appeal No.: 4D v. L.T. Case No.: CA035159XXXXMB
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FLORIDA BLACKTOP, INC., CASE NO.: SC12-1449 Petitioner, Appeal No.: 4D11-408 v. L.T. Case No.: 502009CA035159XXXXMB WEST CONSTRUCTION, INC., Respondent. / PETITIONER
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, v. Defendant/Petitioner, YVES J. LAGUEUX, Plaintiff/Respondent. CASE NO. PETITIONER S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION Petition to Review a Decision of the
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. Third District Case No. 3D LEONARDO DIAZ, Petitioner, THE STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. Third District Case No. 3D01-1486 LEONARDO DIAZ, Petitioner, v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. ----------------------------------------------------------------------
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Case No. SC
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Case No. SC05-1294 BROWARD MARINE, INC., BROWARD MARINE EAST, INC. and DENNIS DeLONG, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Franklin A. Denison, Sr., Deceased Petitioners,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC IN RE: THE ESTATE OF MARY T. OSCEOLA, Petitioners, vs. PETTIES OSCEOLA, SR.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC04-4059 IN RE: THE ESTATE OF MARY T. OSCEOLA, Petitioners, vs. PETTIES OSCEOLA, SR., Respondent APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, THIRD DISTRICT
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC L.T. CASE NOS. 5D
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC12-1661 L.T. CASE NOS. 5D10-2410 FLORIDA INSURANCE GUARANTY ASSOCIATION, Petitioner, v. WHISTLER'S PARK, INC., a Florida Corporation Respondent. FLORIDA INSURANCE
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC11-1737 Fourth District Court of Appeal Case No. 4D10-4687 Seventeenth Judicial Circuit Case No. 10-07095(25) WILLIAM TELLI, Petitioner, v. BROWARD COUNTY AND
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO. DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS CASE NO. 2D CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG, Petitioner,
IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO. DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS CASE NO. 2D02-5802 CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG, Petitioner, v. DONALD AUSTRINO and MARIA AUSTRINO, his wife Respondent. BRIEF OF PETITIONER
More informationSUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA STACI LEVY, as Personal Representative of THE ESTATE Case No: SC 01-2786 OF BRANDON LEVY, Lower Tribunal Case No: 00-4DOO-3671 Plaintiff/Appellant, v. FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY,
More informationThird District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed April 26, 2017. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D16-849 Lower Tribunal No. 04-20174 Coral Gables Imports,
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 informationWhipple' 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 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. 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 information