SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC ON DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, THIRD DISTRICT

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC ON DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, THIRD DISTRICT"

Transcription

1 JOHN KISH and ELIZABETH KISH, vs. Petitioners, SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent. / ON DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, THIRD DISTRICT PETITIONERS' AMENDED BRIEF ON JURISDICTION DANIEL F. O'SHEA, Esq. Reyes, O'Shea & Coloca, P.A Brickell Avenue Suite 1601 Miami, Florida (phone) (fax) By DANIEL F. O'SHEA, Esq. Fla. Bar No

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CITATIONS...ii I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS...1 II. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT...2 III. ARGUMENT IV. CONCLUSION V. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE...11 VI. CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE...11 i

3 TABLE OF CITATIONS Cases Pulmosan Safety Equipment Corporation v. Barnes, 752 So. 2d 556 (Fla. 2000)...1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9 Kluger v. White, 281 So. 2d 1, 4 (Fla. 1973)...2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10 Crossley v. State, 596 So. 2d 447, 449 (Fla. 1992)...2 Nielsen v. City of Sarasota, 117 So. 2d 731, 734 (Fla. 1960)...2 Mitchell v. Moore, 786 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 2001)... 3, 4, 6 Diamond v. E.R. Squibb & Sons, Inc., 397 So. 2d 671 (Fla. 1981)...3, 4, 5, 8, 9 Firestone Tire& Rubber Co. v. Acosta, 612 So. 2d 1361 (Fla. 1992)...3, 5 Kush v. Lloyd, 616 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 1992)...4 ii

4 Agency for Health Care Administration v. Associated Industries of Florida, Inc., 678 So. 2d 1239 (Fla. 1996)...5 Fabre v. Marin, 623 So. 2d 1182 (Fla. 1993) Smith v. Department of Insurance, 507 So. 2d 1080 (Fla. 1987)... 6, 9 Psychiatric Associates v. Siegel, 610 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 1992)...7 Owens Corning Fiberglass Corp. v. Corcoran 679 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)...7, 8 Carr v. Broward County, 541 So. 2d 92 (Fla. 1989)...9 Statutes Florida Statutes section (2)...1, 3, 5, 7, 10 Other Citations Florida Constitution s Article I, Section , 7 iii

5 iv

6 I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS The question is whether the statute of repose for fraud, Florida Statutes section (2), can be constitutionally applied to bar Plaintiff/Petitioner John Kish's latent asbestos injury claim against Defendant/Respondent Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (hereinafter "Met Life") for conspiracy to fraudulently conceal the dangers of asbestos. The district court affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to Defendant Met Life predicated solely "on the basis of the statute of repose for fraud". (A.1-2). In August 2004, the Kishes filed a five-count complaint against twenty-one entities, including Defendant Met Life, for injuries allegedly sustained from exposure to asbestos. (A.2). According to the district court, the Kishs' fraud claim as to Defendant Met Life was predicated upon its failure to divulge, at the request of its co-conspirator policy holders, the results of industrial hygiene surveys and studies it had performed regarding the dangers of exposure to asbestos. (A.2). In upholding the constitutionality of the statute of repose for fraud the district court relied, in large part, upon a number of medical malpractice cases interpreting the medical malpractice statute of repose. (see A.6-9). The district court found this line of decisions more persuasive than this Court's decision in Pulmosan Safety Equipment Corporation v. Barnes, 752 So. 2d 556 (Fla. 2000), and other 1

7 cases construing the products repose, which have held that application of the products repose in the context of a latent injury claim would unconstitutionally deny the claimant access to courts in violation of the Florida Constitution. The district court also held that the Plaintiffs' constitutional right of access to courts was not sufficiently impaired because of the availability of other defendants in the case and that the test for analyzing an alleged access to courts violation, announced by this Court in Kluger v. White, 281 So. 2d 1, 4 (Fla. 1973), was satisfied. (A.3-4). The reasoning of the district court will be discussed more fully in the argument section. II. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT The reasoning of Barnes, 752 So. 2d 556 (Fla. 2000) construing the products repose is equally applicable to this latent injury asbestos cause of action predicated upon fraud. The district court therefore misapplied Barnes to indistinguishable facts, which is a recognized basis for conflict jurisdiction. 1 The district court also adopts a test for alleged access to courts violations, different from the test set forth by 1 Although the district court attempted to distinguish Barnes, the jurisdictional question is whether it successfully did so. The operative question is not simply whether the district court announced a conflicting rule of law, but also whether it applied a rule of law involving indistinguishable facts to reach a different outcome. See Crossley v. State, 596 So. 2d 447, 449 (Fla. 1992); Nielsen v. City of Sarasota, 117 So. 2d 731, 734 (Fla. 1960). 2

8 this Court in Kluger. The district court further erred in failing to ascertain the extent to which the application of the statute of repose in question "obstructs or infringes" upon Plaintiffs' right of access to courts as required by this Court in Mitchell v. Moore, 786 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 2001). III. ARGUMENT THE DISTRICT COURT'S DECISION CONFLICTS WITH BARNES AND ADOPTS A TEST IN CONFLICT WITH KLUGER The issue presented herein is indistinguishable from the issue presented in Barnes, which held that the former product liability statute of repose could not constitutionally be applied to bar plaintiff's latent injury claim which did not manifest until after expiration of the repose period. The statute of repose for fraud, originally found at Florida Statutes section (2), was enacted in 1974 and, for purposes relevant to this action, has remained unchanged ever since. (hereinafter referred to as "1974 fraud repose"). The original statute of repose for products was enacted during the same legislative session, incorporated into the same statute, same section and same subsection as the 1974 fraud repose. (hereinafter referred to as "1974 products repose"). 2 In Barnes, this Court had occasion to re-consider the latent injury exception first announced by this Court in 2 The 1974 products repose was repealed by the Legislature in However, pursuant to this Court's holding in Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Acosta, 612 So. 2d 1361 (Fla. 1992) it remained applicable in cases where the defendant had a "vested right" not to be sued where the repose period had expired prior to its repeal. 3

9 Diamond v. E.R. Squibb & Sons, Inc., 397 So. 2d 671 (Fla. 1981). In Barnes this Court reiterated that the underlying rationale for the latent injury exception to a statute of repose is one of constitutional magnitude. 3 Though Diamond and Barnes concerned the 1974 products repose, the issue presented herein is indistinguishable from the issue presented in Diamond, Barnes and other cases construing the 1974 products repose. The latent injury exception is, in part, predicated upon application of this Court's test announced in Kluger, for "determining compliance with the access to courts clause when the Legislature enacts provisions which appear to restrict the right". See Mitchell at 526. In order to satisfy the Kluger test: 1. The Legislature must have provided a reasonable alternative to protect such right; or, 2. The Legislature must have shown an "overpowering public necessity" for the statute at issue and must further have shown that no alternative means of meeting such public necessity was available. Kluger at 4. In improperly applying the Kluger test, as described more fully below, the district court has, in essence, set forth a new test to be utilized in determining whether a statute violates a claimant's right of access to courts, which is far less stringent and affords far less 3 Statutes of repose are always subject to constitutional attack under the access to courts provision of the Florida Constitution. See Kush v. Lloyd, 616 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 1992). 4

10 protection, and accordingly, conflicts with Kluger. The district court sought to distinguish the Plaintiffs' conspiracy to commit fraud claims herein from the product claims in Diamond and Barnes by stating: First, although the Legislature, through section (2)(a), has foreclosed the Kishs' stale fraud claim, it has provided them with a reasonable alternative remedy via the Diamond exception, now codified in sections (2)(c) and (d) of the Florida Statutes. (A.4). In essence holding that the Legislature had provided a "reasonable alternative" which satisfied the Kluger test. Unfortunately, the district court's reasoning and holding are both flawed. First of all, the exception adopted by the Legislature in 1999 when re-enacting a products repose, is not a "latent injury" exception at all, but instead, like the 1999 products repose itself, is predicated upon the "useful safe life" policy. See Florida Statutes section (2)(c). Secondly, even if the Legislature had wanted to craft an "alternative remedy" for the Plaintiffs' fraud claims herein, 25 years after the 1974 fraud repose was enacted, the Legislature would have been powerless to do so. (A.4). In Firestone Tire & Rubber Company v. Acosta, 612 So. 2d 1361 (Fla. 1992), this Court held that a defendant has a "vested right" in application of a statute of repose that has run and barred an action. Accordingly, any statute which limits or abolishes a "vested" repose defense would be 5

11 unconstitutional as violative of the due process clause of the Florida Constitution. Agency for Health Care Administration v. Associated Industries of Florida, Inc., 678 So. 2d 1239 (Fla. 1996). Despite the district court's statement to the contrary, but for the Diamond exception, any and all of the Plaintiffs' claims, whether for products liability and/or fraud, would be barred by the 1974 products repose and 1974 fraud repose, notwithstanding any "exception" enacted by the Legislature in The district court further concluded that since the Plaintiffs had claims against a number of other defendants the Plaintiffs' right of access to courts was not violated. (A.4). Through its reasoning the district court has crafted a new exception to the Florida Constitution's Article I, Section 21, guarantee of access to courts. Pursuant to the district court's holding a plaintiff may not challenge a statute which completely precludes his cause of action against one defendant if in fact such plaintiff retains some access to courts against some other defendant(s). (A.4). Such a test has never been utilized by any appellate court of this state. Florida is now a pure comparative fault state. Accordingly, each entity is liable according to its degree of fault and not according to the doctrine of joint and several liability. Even non-parties may be placed upon the verdict form and reduce a plaintiff's potential recovery. Fabre v. Marin, 623 So. 2d 1182 (Fla. 1993). In Mitchell, this Court 6

12 stated: A violation (of Article I, Section 21 of the Florida Constitution) occurs if the statute obstructs or infringes that right to any significant degree. Clearly, application of the statute of repose at issue herein completely and totally "obstructs" and "infringes" upon Plaintiffs' claims against Met Life. In Smith v. Department of Insurance, 507 So. 2d 1080 (Fla. 1987) this Court held as unconstitutionally violative of access to courts a statute which placed a $450,000 cap on a plaintiff's potential recovery of non-economic damages. Similarly, the statute in question may limit Plaintiffs' recovery herein if fault is assigned at trial by the jury to Defendant Met Life. Pursuant to the reasoning of the district court the last defendant remaining, in a multi-party case, may always assert that the plaintiff has had "enough" access to courts such that Article I, Section 21 of the Florida Constitution is not violated. Clearly, this is not the test which has been utilized by this Court. The district court also sought to uphold the constitutionality of the 1974 fraud repose as applied herein by describing what it termed the "public necessity that justifies cutting off a stale fraud claim". (A.5). Never once did the district court assert that the Legislature had set forth an "overwhelming public necessity" as heretofore required by Kluger. Never once did the district court assert that the Legislature had shown that no alternative method of 7

13 meeting such public necessity existed. See Psychiatric Associates v. Siegel, 610 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 1992). In Owens Corning Fiberglass Corp. v. Corcoran 679 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996), the Third District in analyzing the legislative history of Section (2), Florida Statutes, held that a "public necessity was never enunciated, demonstrated, or contemplated" for application of "section (2) to a cause such as this one (latent disease claim)". While the Third District in Owens Corning Fiberglass Corp. v. Corcoran 679 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) was concerned with the products prong of the 1974 repose statute, the legislative history for the fraud prong of the 1974 repose statute was no different. Therefore, if there was no overpowering public necessity "enunciated, demonstrated, or contemplated" in the statute or its legislative history for the product prong of the statute there can be no overpowering public necessity for the fraud prong of the 1974 repose statute which remains unchanged, in all pertinent respects, until today. The reasoning and holding in Corcoran was approved by this Court in Barnes. 4 The district court "divines" the Legislature's purpose and intent in enacting the statute of repose at issue in 1974 through references to a review article written by a Thomas Bevis in 1972, which the district court asserts the In Corcoran, a total of 12 entities were originally sued, though only Owens-Corning remained at the time of trial. 8

14 Legislature was "well aware" of, through references to post 1974 cases construing the medical malpractice statute of repose, and through the Legislature's failure to "import a Diamond exception" into the fraud statute of repose. (A.7-8). In "divining" the Legislature's purpose and intent, never once does the district court reference the wording of the statute at issue nor its legislative history. First of all, simple "awareness" has never been equated to a legislative showing of an "overpowering public necessity" as required by Kluger. If it did, then the Tallahassee Democrat, which presumably most legislators read, would by virtue of simple "awareness", become part of the legislative history of every statute. As for the district court's reliance upon medical malpractice cases, this Court considered a similar question certified to it by the First District in Barnes: Is the exception established in Diamond v. E.R. Squibb & Sons, Inc., 397 So. 2d 671 (Fla. 1981), still viable in view of the Court's recent decisions holding the medical malpractice statute of repose constitutional? This Court considered and rejected reliance on precedent construing the medical malpractice statute of repose, when considering the 1974 products repose, for the same reason this Court should reject reliance on such precedent herein. Medical malpractice cases are different for the simple reason that the medical malpractice statute of repose, unlike the repose statute at issue herein, was grounded on an "overwhelming 9

15 public necessity" as set forth by the Legislature. Carr v. Broward County, 541 So. 2d 92 (Fla. 1989). The possible "rationales" for a statute of repose for fraud, as described by the district court in its opinion, are also insufficient to satisfy the requirement that the Legislature itself establish, announce and show, at time of enactment, an "overwhelming public necessity" for the statute at issue. 5 (see A.7). As recognized by this Court in Smith at 1089: Rationality only becomes relevant if the Legislature provides an alternative remedy or abrogates or restricts the right based on a showing of overpowering public necessity and that no alternative method of meeting that necessity exists. With respect to the 1974 fraud repose, rationality is not relevant because the first two requirements of the Kluger test have not been satisfied. Lastly, the failure of the Legislature to act has never been equated with a finding of an announced public policy of an "overwhelming public necessity" for the statute as originally enacted. Especially in instances, such as the case herein, where there is no evidence that the Legislature ever considered the question at issue. 6 5 For example, the district court cites to various "rationales" for the statute such as stale memories, lost witnesses, destroyed documents, etc. 6 The district court's assumption that the Legislature is adverse to what it repeatedly refers to as "stale fraud claims" is belied by the legislative enactment in 1999 of a "fraud" exception to the product repose which has the effect of preserving otherwise "stale product claims" where fraudulent concealment is involved. See (2)(d). 10

16 IV. CONCLUSION It is respectfully submitted, that the decision of the district court directly and expressly conflicts with decisions this Court, warranting conflict review to determine the constitutionality of the statute of repose at issue, as applied. 11

17 Respectfully submitted 1601 Reyes, O'Shea & Coloca, P.A Brickell Ave., Suite Miami, Florida (phone) (fax) By: DANIEL F. O'SHEA Fla. Bar No CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was mailed to Martin Unger, Esq., 701 Peachtree Road, Orlando, FL 32804, Jeffrey A. Cohen, 100 S.E. 2nd St., Miami, Florida and Jeffrey E. McFadden 1330 Conn. Ave., NW, Washington, DC this 21st day of August, By: DANIEL F. O'SHEA Fla. Bar No CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH RULE (9.210(a)(2) I hereby certify that the type style utilized in this brief is 14 point New Times Roman proportionally spaced. By: DANIEL F. O'SHEA Fla. Bar No

18 2

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA. vs. Case No.: 94,544 ON A CERTIFIED QUESTION FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA. vs. Case No.: 94,544 ON A CERTIFIED QUESTION FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co., et. al., Petitioners, vs. Case No.: 94,544 Earl Barnes, et. al., Respondents. ON A CERTIFIED QUESTION FROM THE DISTRICT

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. 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

. 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 SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA RESPONDENTS ENGLEWOOD COMMUNITY HOSPITAL AND RSKCO S ANSWER BRIEF ON JURISDICTION

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA RESPONDENTS ENGLEWOOD COMMUNITY HOSPITAL AND RSKCO S ANSWER BRIEF ON JURISDICTION IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA VICKI LUCAS, vs. Petitioner, ENGLEWOOD COMMUNITY HOSPITAL and RSKCO, CASE NO.: SC07-1736 L.T. Case No.: 1D06-5161 Respondents. / RESPONDENTS ENGLEWOOD

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CBS RADIO STATIONS, INC. f/k/a INFINITY RADIO, INC., vs. Appellant/Petitioner, Case Nos. SC10-2189, SC10-2191 (consolidated) L.T. Case No. 4D08-3504 ELENA WHITBY, a/k/a

More information

CASE NO. SC10- L.T. No. 3D GLK, L.P., a Washington limited partnership, and EMANUEL ORGANEK,

CASE NO. SC10- L.T. No. 3D GLK, L.P., a Washington limited partnership, and EMANUEL ORGANEK, IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC10- L.T. No. 3D09-591 GLK, L.P., a Washington limited partnership, and EMANUEL ORGANEK, vs. Petitioners, FOUR SEASONS HOTELS LIMITED, a Canadian corporation,

More information

CASE NO. SC07- MARIA HERRERA, PETITIONER, RESPONDENT.

CASE NO. SC07- MARIA HERRERA, PETITIONER, RESPONDENT. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC07- MARIA HERRERA, PETITIONER, VS. EDWARD A. SCHILLING, RESPONDENT. BRIEF ON JURISDICTION OF PETITIONER MARIA HERRERA ON DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE THIRD DISTRICT

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC JOY CHATLOS D ARATA, etc., Petitioner, THE CHATLOS FOUNDATION, INC., et al., Respondents.

IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC JOY CHATLOS D ARATA, etc., Petitioner, THE CHATLOS FOUNDATION, INC., et al., Respondents. IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC04-2097 JOY CHATLOS D ARATA, etc., Petitioner, v. THE CHATLOS FOUNDATION, INC., et al., Respondents. BRIEF OF RESPONDENTS ON JURISDICTION ON DISCRETIONARY

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC L. T. CASE NO.: 4D

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC L. T. CASE NO.: 4D IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC05-1644 L. T. CASE NO.: 4D04-1970 SANDRA H. LAND, vs. Petitioner, GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, Respondent. / JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF OF PETITIONER Rebecca J. Covey,

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA PRO-ART DENTAL LAB, INC. Petitioner, V-STRATEGIC GROUP, LLC. Respondent.

IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA PRO-ART DENTAL LAB, INC. Petitioner, V-STRATEGIC GROUP, LLC. Respondent. IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC07-1397 PRO-ART DENTAL LAB, INC. Petitioner, v. V-STRATEGIC GROUP, LLC Respondent. RESPONDENT V-STRATEGIC GROUP, LLC S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION ON DISCRETIONARY

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 94,544

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 94,544 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 94,544 MINNESOTA MINING & MANUFACTURING COMPANY, et al., v. Petitioners, EARL RAY BARNES and LYDIA BARNES, Respondents. / INITIAL BRIEF OF PETITIONER MINNESOTA

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Petitioners, CASE NOS.: 91,966 92,382 vs. 92,451 (Consolidated) JAMES S. PARHAM,

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Petitioners, CASE NOS.: 91,966 92,382 vs. 92,451 (Consolidated) JAMES S. PARHAM, IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA MUSCULOSKELETAL INSTITUTE CHARTERED, d/b/a FLORIDA ORTHOPAEDIC INSTITUTE, CHESTER E. SUTTERLIN, III, M.D., and CHESTER E. SUTTERLIN, III, M.D., P.A., and GENE A. BALIS,

More information

CASE NO. SC DAVID M. SORIA, M.D., INPHYNET CONTRACTING SERVICES, INC. and TEAM HEALTH, INC., JURISDICTIONAL ANSWER BRIEF

CASE NO. SC DAVID M. SORIA, M.D., INPHYNET CONTRACTING SERVICES, INC. and TEAM HEALTH, INC., JURISDICTIONAL ANSWER BRIEF IN THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT _ CASE NO. SC11-2050 DAVID M. SORIA, M.D., vs Petitioner. INPHYNET CONTRACTING SERVICES, INC. and TEAM HEALTH, INC., Respondents. On discretionary conflict review of a decision

More information

SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC

SUPREME 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 information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC LEONARDO DIAZ, Petitioner, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent.

IN 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 information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO: SC05-374

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO: SC05-374 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO: SC05-374 BRIDGESTONE/FIRESTONE, INC., vs. Petitioner, CAROLYN HOLMES, individually, and as Parent and Guardian of COREY HOLMES and COURTNEY HOLMES, Respondents.

More information

STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND OF THE FACTS. Balis, M.D. (Dr. Balis), a neurosurgeon, and Chester E. Sutterlin, III, M.D. (Dr.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND OF THE FACTS. Balis, M.D. (Dr. Balis), a neurosurgeon, and Chester E. Sutterlin, III, M.D. (Dr. STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND OF THE FACTS Plaintiff, James S. Parham (Mr. Parham), who was an Assistant State Attorney, fell in the Hillsborough County Courthouse and injured his back. (R 27) His injuries

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

IN 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 information

IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA. CASE NO.: SC FOURTH DCA CASE NO.: 4D L.T. No.: (27)

IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA. CASE NO.: SC FOURTH DCA CASE NO.: 4D L.T. No.: (27) IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC08-1689 FOURTH DCA CASE NO.: 4D07-1153 L.T. No.: 0120551 (27) ANNA JANE JOHNSON, individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Gene Johnson,

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Sup. Ct. case no. SC07- DCA case no. 1D LEON COUNTY, FLORIDA'S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Sup. Ct. case no. SC07- DCA case no. 1D LEON COUNTY, FLORIDA'S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA LEON COUNTY, FLORIDA, a Political Subdivision of the State of Florida, Petitioner, vs. STEPHEN S. DOBSON, III, P.A., Sup. Ct. case no. SC07- DCA case no. 1D05-4326 Respondent.

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC04-442 Lower Tribunal No.: 4D02-101 JOHN RHAMES, DAN MATHIS, and ROBERT MARTO, vs. Petitioners, CITY OF LAUDERHILL, FLORIDA, a Municipality, Respondent. / On

More information

IN THE SUPREME OF FLORIDA RESPONDENT S ANSWER BRIEF ON JURISDICTION ON DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM A DECISION OF THE FOURTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

IN THE SUPREME OF FLORIDA RESPONDENT S ANSWER BRIEF ON JURISDICTION ON DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM A DECISION OF THE FOURTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL IN THE SUPREME OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC06-88 4DCA CASE NO.: 4D 04-1350 MICHAEL GLYNN vs. Petitioner, FIRST UNION NATIONAL BANK, Respondent. / RESPONDENT S ANSWER BRIEF ON JURISDICTION ON DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

More information

SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA SUPREME COURT CASE NO. SC DISTRICT COURT CASE NO. 3D L.T. CASE NO

SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA SUPREME COURT CASE NO. SC DISTRICT COURT CASE NO. 3D L.T. CASE NO SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA SUPREME COURT CASE NO. SC10-2453 DISTRICT COURT CASE NO. 3D 09-161 L.T. CASE NO. 05-15300 BARBARA J. TUCKER, Petitioner, vs. LPP MORTGAGE LTD., f/k/a LOAN PARTICIPANT PARTNERS,

More information

IN 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.: 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 information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC STEVEN PAVONE, Petitioner, vs. ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD., Respondent.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC STEVEN PAVONE, Petitioner, vs. ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD., Respondent. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC12-1817 STEVEN PAVONE, Petitioner, vs. ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD., Respondent. ON PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA,

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA PETITIONER S INITIAL BRIEF ON THE MERITS

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA PETITIONER S INITIAL BRIEF ON THE MERITS IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA ROBERT T. MOSHER, CASE NO.: SC00-1263 Lower Tribunal No.: 4D99-1067 Petitioner, v. STEPHEN J. ANDERSON, Respondent. / PETITIONER S INITIAL BRIEF ON THE MERITS John T. Mulhall

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 Third DCA Case Nos. 3D / 3D L.T. Case No CA 15

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Case No. SC Third DCA Case Nos. 3D / 3D L.T. Case No CA 15 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Case No. SC08-1877 Third DCA Case Nos. 3D07-2875 / 3D07-3106 L.T. Case No. 04-17958 CA 15 VALAT INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS, LTD. Petitioner, vs. MERRILL LYNCH & CO., INC. Respondent.

More information

IN 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. 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 information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Case No. SC A.I.G. URUGUAY COMPANIA DE SEGUROS, S.A., Plaintiff/Petitioner, LANDAIR TRANSPORT, et al.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Case No. SC A.I.G. URUGUAY COMPANIA DE SEGUROS, S.A., Plaintiff/Petitioner, LANDAIR TRANSPORT, et al. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Case No. SC05-1243 A.I.G. URUGUAY COMPANIA DE SEGUROS, S.A., Plaintiff/Petitioner, v. LANDAIR TRANSPORT, et al., Defendant/Respondent. ON DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE DISTRICT

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC JOSE VALDES and JUANA VALDES, his wife, Petitioners, vs.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC JOSE VALDES and JUANA VALDES, his wife, Petitioners, vs. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC06-971 JOSE VALDES and JUANA VALDES, his wife, Petitioners, vs. GAB ROBINS NORTH AMERICA, INC., SOUTHERN UNDERWRITERS, INC., CAPITAL ASSURANCE SERVICES, INC.,

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC LOWER TRIBUNAL CASE NO. 3D04-95 GROVE ISLE ASSOCIATION, INC., Defendant/Petitioner, vs.

IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC LOWER TRIBUNAL CASE NO. 3D04-95 GROVE ISLE ASSOCIATION, INC., Defendant/Petitioner, vs. IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC05-1481 LOWER TRIBUNAL CASE NO. 3D04-95 GROVE ISLE ASSOCIATION, INC., Defendant/Petitioner, vs. IRENE ARDITI and MAURICE ARDITI, Plaintiffs/Respondents.

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA. v. CASE NO. ON DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE SECOND DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA. v. CASE NO. ON DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE SECOND DISTRICT OF FLORIDA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA KATHLEEN RIVERS Petitioner/Appellant v. CASE NO. GRIMSLEY OIL COMPANY INC. d/b/a STOP N SHOP FOOD STORES Respondent/Appellee / ON DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC FRANK HERNANDEZ. Petitioner, -vs- THE STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC FRANK HERNANDEZ. Petitioner, -vs- THE STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC02-2752 FRANK HERNANDEZ Petitioner, -vs- THE STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. ON PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA,

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC LOWER TRIBUNAL CASE NO.: 3D BOCA INVESTORS GROUP, INC. Petitioner, vs. IRWIN POTASH et al.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC LOWER TRIBUNAL CASE NO.: 3D BOCA INVESTORS GROUP, INC. Petitioner, vs. IRWIN POTASH et al. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC03-351 LOWER TRIBUNAL CASE NO.: 3D01-2587 BOCA INVESTORS GROUP, INC. Petitioner, vs. IRWIN POTASH et al., Respondents. On Discretionary Conflict Review of a

More information

IN 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. 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 information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.

IN 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 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 KENNETH JENKINS, v. Petitioner, CASE NO. SC04-2088 STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF OF RESPONDENT CHARLES J. CRIST, JR. ATTORNEY GENERAL ROBERT R. WHEELER

More information

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL THIRD DISTRICT OF FLORIDA. Case No. SC R.H., G.W., T.L., juveniles, Petitioners, vs.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL THIRD DISTRICT OF FLORIDA. Case No. SC R.H., G.W., T.L., juveniles, Petitioners, vs. Electronically Filed 03/14/2013 02:35:25 PM ET RECEIVED, 3/14/2013 14:38:34, Thomas D. Hall, Clerk, Supreme Court IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL THIRD DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. SC13-326 R.H., G.W.,

More information

SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA CASE NO.:

SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA CASE NO.: MARIA CEVALLOS, SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA CASE NO.: 4th District Case No: 4D08-3042 v. Petitioner, KERI ANN RIDEOUT and LINDA RIDEOUT, Respondents. / PETITIONER S JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT THE STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC DCA CASE NO. 3D DOCTOR DIABETIC SUPPLY, INC., Appellant / Petitioner,

IN THE SUPREME COURT THE STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC DCA CASE NO. 3D DOCTOR DIABETIC SUPPLY, INC., Appellant / Petitioner, IN THE SUPREME COURT THE STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC10-1922 3DCA CASE NO. 3D09-1475 DOCTOR DIABETIC SUPPLY, INC., Appellant / Petitioner, v. POAP CORP. d/b/a EXCHANGE PLACE, Appellee / Respondent. PETITIONER

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Case No. SC Fifth DCA Case No. 5D th Judicial Circuit Case No. 06-CA-1003 and 06-CA-8702

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Case No. SC Fifth DCA Case No. 5D th Judicial Circuit Case No. 06-CA-1003 and 06-CA-8702 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Case No. SC10-1892 Fifth DCA Case No. 5D09-1761 9 th Judicial Circuit Case No. 06-CA-1003 and 06-CA-8702 Upon Petition for Discretionary Jurisdiction Review Of A Decision

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA CASE NO. SC07-2135 LUIS R. COLON, Petitioner, -vs- MERCEDES HOMES, INC., ETC. Respondent. / BRIEF OF PETITIONER, COLON, ON JURISDICTION Michael Manglardi,

More information

CASE NO. SC CORAL REEF DRIVE LAND DEVELOPMENT, LLC, etc. et al., DUKE REALTY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a foreign limited partnership,

CASE NO. SC CORAL REEF DRIVE LAND DEVELOPMENT, LLC, etc. et al., DUKE REALTY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a foreign limited partnership, IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC10-2367 CORAL REEF DRIVE LAND DEVELOPMENT, LLC, etc. et al., vs. Petitioners, DUKE REALTY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a foreign limited partnership, Respondent. On a

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Petitioner, DCA CASE No. 5D v. CASE NO. SC ON DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Petitioner, DCA CASE No. 5D v. CASE NO. SC ON DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA SAUL CARMONA, Petitioner, DCA CASE No. 5D03-229 v. CASE NO. SC STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. / ON DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL JURISDICTIONAL

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Case No. SC06-56 BEVERLY PENZELL AND BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Petitioners, vs.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Case No. SC06-56 BEVERLY PENZELL AND BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Petitioners, vs. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Case No. SC06-56 BEVERLY PENZELL AND BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Petitioners, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, Respondent. RESPONDENT S ANSWER BRIEF

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Case No.: SC Lower Tribunal No.: 1D ADAMS GRADING AND TRUCKING, INC. and JOHN M.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Case No.: SC Lower Tribunal No.: 1D ADAMS GRADING AND TRUCKING, INC. and JOHN M. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Case No.: SC07-1175 Lower Tribunal No.: 1D06-1760 ADAMS GRADING AND TRUCKING, INC. and JOHN M. BLOODSWORTH, Petitioners, vs. MICHAEL E. GRAY, Respondent. ON REVIEW FROM

More information

Supreme Court of Florida

Supreme Court of Florida Electronically Filed 08/20/2013 05:25:08 PM ET RECEIVED, 8/20/2013 17:28:33, Thomas D. Hall, Clerk, Supreme Court Supreme Court of Florida CASE NO. SC13- PEGGY T. STIMPSON, and RALPH M. STIMPSON, Petitioners,

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA IN RE: AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA RULES OF EVIDENCE CASE NO.: SC 13-

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA IN RE: AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA RULES OF EVIDENCE CASE NO.: SC 13- IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA IN RE: AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA RULES OF EVIDENCE CASE NO.: SC 13- THREE-YEAR CYCLE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE FLORIDA BAR CODE AND RULES OF EVIDENCE COMMITTEE Thomas D. Shults,

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC L. T. CASE NO.: 4D

IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC L. T. CASE NO.: 4D MARTIN MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER, INC., v. Petitioner, IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC11-1070 L. T. CASE NO.: 4D09-2497 ALEXANDER WEBSTER, individually, and as Personal Representative

More information

In the Supreme Court of Florida. Case No. Sc Kimberly Ann Miles and Jody haynes, her husband, Petitioners, vs. !!! Daniel Weingrad, M.D.

In the Supreme Court of Florida. Case No. Sc Kimberly Ann Miles and Jody haynes, her husband, Petitioners, vs. !!! Daniel Weingrad, M.D. In the Supreme Court of Florida Case No. Sc13-54 Kimberly Ann Miles and Jody haynes, her husband, Petitioners, vs. Daniel Weingrad, M.D., Respondent. Petitioners Initial Brief On Discretionary Review from

More information

SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Case No. SC

SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Case No. SC SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Case No. SC05-1586 BRUCE BERNSTEIN, Petitioner, vs. HARVEY GOLDMAN, Respondent, PETITIONER'S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION Petition to Review Decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Case No. SC L.T. No. 2D SOUTHSTAR EQUITY, L.L.C. and BROOKSIDE PROPERTIES, INC., Petitioners, vs.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Case No. SC L.T. No. 2D SOUTHSTAR EQUITY, L.L.C. and BROOKSIDE PROPERTIES, INC., Petitioners, vs. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Case No. SC08-962 L.T. No. 2D05-1306 SOUTHSTAR EQUITY, L.L.C. and BROOKSIDE PROPERTIES, INC., Petitioners, vs. LAI CHAU, Respondent. RESPONDENT S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION ON

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC11-352 THE VILLAS DEL VERDE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., Petitioner, vs. CLARK H. SCHERER, III, Respondent. ON DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE SECOND DISTRICT

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC SOUTHERN BAPTIST HOSPTIAL OF FLORIDA, INC., a corporation, Petitioner, JEFFREY W.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC SOUTHERN BAPTIST HOSPTIAL OF FLORIDA, INC., a corporation, Petitioner, JEFFREY W. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC04-380 SOUTHERN BAPTIST HOSPTIAL OF FLORIDA, INC., a corporation, Petitioner, v. JEFFREY W. WELKER, Respondent. On Review from the First District Court of Appeal

More information

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. 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 information

SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA MATINNAZ CONSTRUCTION, INC., vs. Petitioner/Appellee, DIAMOND REGAL DEVELOPMENT, INC., Case No.: SC09-4786 L.T. Case No.: 1D07-4786/ 1D07-5580 Respondent/Appellant. / ON REVIEW

More 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

JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF OF RESPONDENT, I & E GROUP, INC.

JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF OF RESPONDENT, I & E GROUP, INC. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA KATARINA LOIDL, Petitioner, Case No. SC06-992 v. DCA Case No. 2D05-3984 I & E GROUP, INC., and HARALD LOIDL Respondents. / JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF OF RESPONDENT, I & E GROUP,

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. v. CASE NO. SC04-58 ON DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. v. CASE NO. SC04-58 ON DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA ROBERT DEREK LEWIS, Petitioner, v. CASE NO. SC04-58 STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. / ON DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA. v. CASE NO. SC04-489

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA. v. CASE NO. SC04-489 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA BIOMET, INC., a foreign corporation with its principal place of business in Warsaw, Indiana and licensed to do and be in business in Florida, and MIKE TRIESTE,

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Petitioner, v. CASE NO. DCA NO. 1D ON REVIEW FROM THE FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Petitioner, v. CASE NO. DCA NO. 1D ON REVIEW FROM THE FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL TEREATHA ROBINSON, IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Petitioner, v. CASE NO. DCA NO. 1D11-4139 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. ON REVIEW FROM THE FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL PETITIONER'S

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CHARLIE CRIST, Attorney ) General of the State of ) Florida, ) ) Petitioner, ) Case No. SC vs. ) ) Fourth District REP. CORRINE BROWN, et al., ) Case Nos. 4D02-2353 & 4D02-2401

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA LAURA RUIMY, Appellant/Plaintiff/Petitioner, vs. FLOR N. BEAL, ALEX RENE BIAL a/k/a ALEX RENE BEAL,

IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA LAURA RUIMY, Appellant/Plaintiff/Petitioner, vs. FLOR N. BEAL, ALEX RENE BIAL a/k/a ALEX RENE BEAL, IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA LAURA RUIMY, Appellant/Plaintiff/Petitioner, vs. FLOR N. BEAL, ALEX RENE BIAL a/k/a ALEX RENE BEAL, Appellee/Defendant/Respondent. SUPREME COURT CASE NO.: 09-428 3

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA. Case No.: SC District Court Case No.: 4D CYBERKNIFE CENTER OF THE TREASURE COAST, LLC,

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA. Case No.: SC District Court Case No.: 4D CYBERKNIFE CENTER OF THE TREASURE COAST, LLC, IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA Case No.: SC11-1914 District Court Case No.: 4D11-484 CYBERKNIFE CENTER OF THE TREASURE COAST, LLC, Petitioner, vs. HCA HEALTH SERVICES OF FLORIDA, INC. D/B/A

More information

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

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. CASE NO. SC L.T. No. 1D GAIL GILES, et al., vs. Petitioners CURTIS LUCKIE, Respondent. / IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC02-1200 L.T. No. 1D01-1802 AMICUS BRIEF OF THE ACADEMY OF FLORIDA TRIAL LAWYERS BARBARA GREEN,

More information

IN 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. 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 information

IN 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.: 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 information

DEFENDANT CITY OF HIALEAH S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

DEFENDANT CITY OF HIALEAH S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Filing # 14713582 Electronically Filed 06/11/2014 06:32:24 PM SILVIO MEMBRENO and FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF VENDORS, INC., v. Plaintiffs, THE CITY OF HIALEAH, FLORIDA, Defendants. / IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA. CASE NO. SC: 4 th DCA CASE NO: 4D STATE OF FLORIDA, Petitioner, vs. SALVATORE BENNETT,

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA. CASE NO. SC: 4 th DCA CASE NO: 4D STATE OF FLORIDA, Petitioner, vs. SALVATORE BENNETT, IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC: 4 th DCA CASE NO: 4D04-4825 STATE OF FLORIDA, Petitioner, vs. SALVATORE BENNETT, Respondent. PETITIONER'S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION CHARLES J. CRIST,

More information

SUPREME 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. 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 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 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA BRENT HUCK, Petitioner, v. CASE NO. SC04-2046 STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. / ON DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF OF RESPONDENT

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA INITIAL BRIEF ON THE MERITS OF PETITIONERS CHESTER E. SUTTERLIN, III, M.D. AND CHESTER E. SUTTERLIN, III, M.D., P.A.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA INITIAL BRIEF ON THE MERITS OF PETITIONERS CHESTER E. SUTTERLIN, III, M.D. AND CHESTER E. SUTTERLIN, III, M.D., P.A. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CHESTER E. SUTTERLIN, III, M.D., and CHESTER E. SUTTERLIN, III, M.D., P.A., Petitioners, vs. Case No. 92,382 JAMES S. PARHAM, Respondent. / INITIAL BRIEF ON THE MERITS OF

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC DCA CASE NO. 3D EDUARDO GIRALT, Petitioner, -vs- STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC DCA CASE NO. 3D EDUARDO GIRALT, Petitioner, -vs- STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC04-950 DCA CASE NO. 3D03-857 EDUARDO GIRALT, Petitioner, -vs- STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. ON PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 2 5 AN 0 23 SHANDALYN SANDERS, as Personal Representative of the Estates of CLARA --- SANDERS, deceased, and CHAUNCEY SANDERS, deceased, Petitioner,

More information

Supreme Court of Florida

Supreme Court of Florida Supreme Court of Florida Nos. SC03-33 & SC03-97 PHILIP C. D'ANGELO, M.D., et al., Petitioners, vs. JOHN J. FITZMAURICE, et al., Respondents. JOHN J. FITZMAURICE, et al., Petitioners, vs. PHILIP C. D'ANGELO,

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. THE STATE OF FLORIDA, Petitioner, vs. JORGE LUIS DOMINGUEZ, Respondent.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. THE STATE OF FLORIDA, Petitioner, vs. JORGE LUIS DOMINGUEZ, Respondent. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. THE STATE OF FLORIDA, Petitioner, vs. JORGE LUIS DOMINGUEZ, Respondent. ON PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD DISTRICT BRIEF

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA. CASE NO. SC09- L.T. Case No. 4D

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA. CASE NO. SC09- L.T. Case No. 4D IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC09- L.T. Case No. 4D08-1429 COLUMBIA HOSPITAL CORPORATION OF SOUTH BROWARD, d/b/a WESTSIDE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, a foreign For profit corporation,

More 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. SC09-1115 DISTRICT CASE NOS. 4D07-3703 and 4D07-4641 (Consolidated) L.T. CASE NO. 50 2005 CA 002721 XXXX MB SHEILA M. HULICK and THE REYNOLDS AND REYNOLDS

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC LOWER COURT NO.: 4D JACK LIEBMAN. Petitioner. vs.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC LOWER COURT NO.: 4D JACK LIEBMAN. Petitioner. vs. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC03-1896 LOWER COURT NO.: 4D00-2883 JACK LIEBMAN Petitioner vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. RESPONDENT'S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION CHARLES J. CRIST,

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC STATE OF FLORIDA, Petitioner, vs. MISAEL CORNEJO, a/k/a, MIGUEL SANCHEZ, Respondent.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC STATE OF FLORIDA, Petitioner, vs. MISAEL CORNEJO, a/k/a, MIGUEL SANCHEZ, Respondent. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC05-456 STATE OF FLORIDA, Petitioner, vs. MISAEL CORNEJO, a/k/a, MIGUEL SANCHEZ, Respondent. RESPONDENT S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION CAREY HAUGHWOUT Public

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA ON PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM A DECISION OF THE SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL, STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA ON PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM A DECISION OF THE SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL, STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO. LARSON & LARSON, P.A., HERBERT W. LARSON, and H. WILLIAM LARSON, JR., IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Defendants/Petitioners, -vs- Sup. Ct. Case No. SC08-428 TSE INDUSTRIES, INC., Respondent. / ON PETITION

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY and AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY Petitioners, CASE NO: vs. Lower Tribunal No. 2D01-5770 BILTMORE CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. and CENTRAL-ALLIED ENTERPRISES,

More information

IN 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. 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 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 THE STATE OF FLORIDA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA JERRY W. COUCH, GLENDA M. COUCH, and BEVERLY TODD, TRUSTEE, Petitioners, vs. SC04-635 TROPICAL BREEZE RESORT ASSOCIATION, INC., Respondent. On Appeal from the

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA STATE OF FLORIDA, v. Appellant/Petitioner, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA, Appellee/Respondent. / Case No.: SC08-1827 Lower Tribunal No(s).: 2008-1

More information

CASE NO. SC L.T. Case No. 1D

CASE NO. SC L.T. Case No. 1D Electronically Filed 10/25/2013 04:53:20 PM ET RECEIVED, 10/25/2013 16:58:34, Thomas D. Hall, Clerk, Supreme Court IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC13-1882 L.T. Case No. 1D12-2116 WALTER E. HEADLEY,

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC ALEXANDER L. KAPLAN, et al., Petitioners, vs. KIMBALL HILL HOMES FLORIDA, INC.,

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC ALEXANDER L. KAPLAN, et al., Petitioners, vs. KIMBALL HILL HOMES FLORIDA, INC., IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC06-74 ALEXANDER L. KAPLAN, et al., Petitioners, vs. KIMBALL HILL HOMES FLORIDA, INC., Respondent. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 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. 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 information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. v. Lower Tribunals Case No. 1D On Review from the District Court of Appeal, First District, State of Florida

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. v. Lower Tribunals Case No. 1D On Review from the District Court of Appeal, First District, State of Florida IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA DYNELLE GIBSON, PETITIONER, Case No.: SC11-1450 v. Lower Tribunals Case No. 1D10-3008 ALTMAN CONTRACTORS and OJCC Case No. 07-030129DEJ NORTH RIVER INSURANCE COMPANY, RESPONDENTS.

More information

FLORIDA SUPREME COURT

FLORIDA SUPREME COURT FLORIDA SUPREME COURT JAMES KING, Appellant, CASE NO. : SC01-1883 v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. APPELLANT S INITIAL BRIEF ON THE MERITS On appeal from a question certified by the Fifth District Court

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Petitioner, v. CASE NO.: SC DCA case no.: 5D CR Respondent. /

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Petitioner, v. CASE NO.: SC DCA case no.: 5D CR Respondent. / IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA STATE OF FLORIDA, Petitioner, v. CASE NO.: SC02-2622 DCA case no.: 5D01-957 COURTNEY MITCHELL, Circuit court case no.: CR99-9872 Respondent. / ON REVIEW FROM THE FIFTH DISTRICT

More information

NO SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA WALTER WEISENBERG. Petitioner, vs. COSTA CROCIERE, S.p.A. Respondent.

NO SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA WALTER WEISENBERG. Petitioner, vs. COSTA CROCIERE, S.p.A. Respondent. NO. 10-1256 SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA WALTER WEISENBERG Petitioner, vs. COSTA CROCIERE, S.p.A. Respondent. On Appeal From the Third District Court of Appeal LT Case No(s): 3D07-555; 04-23514 PETITIONER

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF FLORIDA

IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF FLORIDA IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF FLORIDA NEW TESTAMENT BAPTIST CHURCH, INCORPORATED OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. SC08- STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Respondent. / JURISDICTIONAL

More information

SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA. v. CASE No. SC L.T. Case No. 1D BASIL D. FOSSUM, M.D. and DENNIS M. LEWIS, M.D.,

SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA. v. CASE No. SC L.T. Case No. 1D BASIL D. FOSSUM, M.D. and DENNIS M. LEWIS, M.D., SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA BETH LINN and ANTHONY LINN, Petitioners, v. CASE No. SC05-134 L.T. Case No. 1D03-4152 BASIL D. FOSSUM, M.D. and DENNIS M. LEWIS, M.D., Respondents. / JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Case No. SC

IN 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 information

IN 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. 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 information