Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): the essential inquiry is whether the defendant knowingly drove the vehicle in such a manner and under such conditions as was likely to cause death or great bodily harm. D.E. v. State, 904 So.2d 558, 562 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). Although the defendant need not have foreseen the specific circumstances causing the death of the victim, the defendant should have reasonably foreseen that the same general type of harm might occur if he knowingly drove his vehicle under circumstances that would likely cause death or great bodily harm to another. Michel v. State, 752 So.2d 6, 12 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). A number of appellate courts in Florida have stated that “speed alone” is insufficient to support a conviction for vehicular homicide. See, e.g., House v. State, 831 So.2d 1230, 1233 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (<HOLDING>); Hamilton v. State, 439 So.2d 238, 238-39 
 Holding statements: (A) holding 350 per hour reasonable for civil rights federal court litigation (B) recognizing that 90 per hour is a reasonable rate for a paralegal (C) holding that speed alone will not support a conviction but that other factors supported the vehicular homicide conviction where defendant was speeding at 50 to 60 miles per hour in a 30 mile per hour residential area with slowchildren playing sign (D) holding that evidence was insufficient to support conviction for vehicular homicide where the defendant was driving 60 miles per hour in a 30 mile per hour zone before the collision and a minimum of 50 miles per hour at the time of impact (E) holding that evidence was sufficient to support conviction for vehicular homicide where defendant was driving anywhere from 67 to 90 miles per hour in a residential neighbor hood which alone justified denial of the motion for judgment of acquittal even though the defendant was also playing with his cd driving in rainy conditions and rounding a curve in the road
Output (English): holding 350 per hour reasonable for civil rights federal court litigation