alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida 

Opinion filed May 3, 2023.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D22-1193

Lower Tribunal No. 21-4499 CC

________________

Barry Kilcoyne,

Appellant,

vs.

Joseph P. George, Jr.,

Appellee.

An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Stephanie 

Silver, Judge.

South Florida Appeals, PA, and Wm. Allen Bonner, for appellant.

Elliot L. Miller, for appellee.

Before LOGUE, HENDON and LOBREE, JJ. 

HENDON, J. 
2

Barry Kilcoyne, personal representative of the estate of Ralph Muir, 

seeks to reverse a final order of the County Court of the Eleventh Judicial 

Circuit in Miami-Dade County in favor of Joseph P. George, Jr.’s claim for 

attorney’s fees arising out of the administration of the estate. We reverse. 

Because the circuit court has exclusive jurisdiction over proceedings 

relating to the settlement of the estates of decedents, including 

proceedings to determine a probate lawyer’s compensation, we conclude 

that the county court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to determine 

this fee dispute. § 26.012(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (2023); § 733.6175, Fla. Stat. 

(2023); § 733.106(4), Fla. Stat. (2023); see also In re Est. of Udell, 501 So. 

2d 1286, 1288 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Faulkner v. Woodruff, 159 So. 3d 319, 

322 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (holding that “the Florida probate court has 

exclusive jurisdiction [over matters relating to probate attorney’s 

compensation] and is obligated to review estate fees upon the petition of a 

proper party”) (citing In re Winston, 610 So. 2d 1323, 1325 (Fla. 4th DCA 

1992)).

Accordingly, we reverse the order on appeal, and remand the cause 

with instructions to transfer the case to the circuit court for further 

proceedings. Due to the disposition of the jurisdictional issue, we decline to

reach the merits of the issues on appeal. 
3

Reversed and remanded.
#### Willie CONDRY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-326.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 6, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Bergliette B. RINE, Appellant, v. William E. RINE, Appellee.

No. 70-129.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Aug. 26, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
UNAUDITED  CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 AND THE UNAUDITED
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 OF
TEL-SAVE  HOLDINGS,  INC. AND  SUBSIDIARIES  AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     US DOLLARS
       
<S>                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                           1  
<CASH>                                         $160,226,000  
<SECURITIES>                                     12,737,000  
<RECEIVABLES>                                    22,883,000  
<ALLOWANCES>                                        931,000  
<INVENTORY>                                               0  
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                212,137,000  
<PP&E>                                           22,925,000  
<DEPRECIATION>                                      398,000  
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  239,378,000  
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            28,583,000  
<BONDS>                                                   0  
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               290,000  
<PREFERRED>                                               0  
<COMMON>                                                  0  
<OTHER-SE>                                      207,506,000  
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    239,378,000  
<SALES>                                                   0  
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                168,159,000  
<CGS>                                                     0  
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   145,617,000  
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                          0  
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0  
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                        0  
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  23,221,000  
<INCOME-TAX>                                      8,754,000  
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              14,467,000  
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0  
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0  
<CHANGES>                                                 0  
<NET-INCOME>                                     14,467,000  
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          0.53  
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          0.52  
         

</TABLE>
#### The CONTINENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a New York corporation, Appellant, v. Eliot C. FLETCHER et al., Appellees.

No. 71-547.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Nov. 18, 1971.

Appeal dismissed.
i mn DEPARTMENT OF COMMENCE-GUREAY OF THE CENSUS os (comme tm oie no ~

unt bBo FOURTEENTH CENSUS OF THE UNITED STATES, 1920—POPULATION Enuwenanon Disict NoZ_2 2 A
‘Townsiir on ome We OF COUNTY sree St rs hl eras NAME OF INCORPORATED PLACE a se oo LOGPR. rfc Feee|
Nae oF hetron ENUMERATED BY ME ON THE 2a ”_onF OF int Laie tn

~on EES tee | ata —
: = =| = afeoalts ee
— a a os =|
H Laz iz! fice 2 apfed 2 Se z Lat wie
| Pa ze{S! 2 g Fi “A = am
—s Art 45 fom | Sree Guess £. os 190
Po fone ate
Sz Historic census records are maintained and released by the National Archives and Records Administration, not the U.S. Census Bureau, ee eae
a4, i
area Visit http://www.archives.gov for more information about publicly available records like the one shown here. 7; Sauer
ca ites sea
af ehagicce| a aa” a € plate ae i
3 Es 2 Oe Soomro Zeasza = Zap
ud a ae oe Ge heen
3 telacteal $GAETS oo Z aes
a Bese a [— is
a Ged gat eas +}
> Fa Lease ra
Mes
Ne pate Fase el ee re paaea ee Pe 5
i Beted. FAA Bho z: 17
eal moa ae ” 52’
ie = [acpi | lea yeaa 5 2
F | “Pit a, haa, T [oe = pel fe ey
13 i Leet Zt} foto Eto Zahn EET FOR
== ar re ee ei Pia fact —{o35
bi 2 taal Pewee |B z
> | Vex. Pre. A Aptaen Dre Breen | Pitas’ —| Sie.
af a i
is oe oe [Boren 7
Sh agg PY Td ri
I 7a Lidia Ratt eps z Zo
a epee ees ee ras | ——
pace a IF? ak ee ees
~af_] 2 mn d = za
Fd be a lowe. Z cma?
ee ea [aad ORD
, 3 re Zz z
a Fecal glare v7 z Z
FA ra ica
id ri ge ms Lene =
eg 2 ane Z
ry ect Lin Be
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                       1,570,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,870,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   663,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,413,000
<PP&E>                                      12,185,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,067,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             129,899,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       65,027,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            6,000
<PREFERRED>                                      6,000
<COMMON>                                        49,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  55,640,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               129,899,000
<SALES>                                      9,810,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             8,895,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                8,141,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,606,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (852,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (852,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,229,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.16)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.16)
        


</TABLE>
Form 15-6
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE—BUREAU OF THE CENSUS

eo tae gees “<< eae hy Wh b vines, sows poche FIFTEENTH CENSUS OF THE UNITED STATES: 1930 27
API A Ward of city [6 eet ts SR es Block Wo. GL POPULATION SCHEDULE Supervisor's District No. —_‘—_—

A fo f

8?

Township or other — A, 5 i
Fe es ce SU ee secre en ee ee ey ee eee Seem <n 2 ee
& PLACE OF ABODE NAME Can ae HOME DATA PERSONAL DESCRIPTION | EDUCATION PLACE OF BIRTH ANCHO, Oe PODER THAT CITIZENSHIP, ETC, | OCCUPATION AND INDUSTRY a orompami ——
) — 4 EN snciesd : : se
i ais Fe es of rag geet mp hooe @ on ne 1 in fi : EF \ . af i 33 ' ‘he aie Sates, ve Sat ot Nerory vi of foreign Mt ve cout a Sinsmenpsgdanl the Pore cay #33 5 a OCCUPATION zm rer Se ; EES military Ee
i aay “= ote en nda "8 the head of the | 25 rae z -F } : <2 #3 HE fe i: French from Canada-English, and Irish Free State from Northern Ireland pba eng ag tie eta =3 E ¥ Kind Sitwert, ‘en toners tom mill dry. are, ‘Dona & | Yes vse = wer ule
i of sie: | taten “children been since Apr, ig90 i 338 i Els|3si<la I< £83) pf PERSON FATHER MOTHER os | comer | Me, | EE : Ht a es fits, | a] Me | Porment | i, | Soe
1 2 3 r 5 6 | " _9 | 10 [a1] ae | 13 4 | as |e | az 18 is _ iL» |e eel oe - + = —— a ar a We oe
by 0,00 fh | We eed 4 bo fe \ Mone | Unt {isle | Soper | ot 8 =a | fe Wlidlotery | Gabtales — \17(5 | elf fa
og : a L/ 7 a ay a 2 0 lo ye hus In) 9 Aw if 2
I Fe las od [le Gol Berne — ss 7—\ Ball ool only lam tan ad i
| ar — vie -
- pare eT Historic census records are maintained and released by 1 mae al a, mea saan dint Oh aed Wak f
6 | iy the National Archives and Records Administration, le [a 6
ght 3) not the U.S. Census Bureau. ane gan le
9 Jd.0? ] vy 9
— i . “ - Ptt.—t- | )
oa rope) Visit http:/www.archives.gov for more information about publicly "74 igo iia Th
12 | available records like the one shown here. 7 arn My 12
13 nee ae - 1) Le ele 13
14 3 WY at m2 4
15 Oo] ia 15
a ot a: OE hoe Be 16
17 Yd _ ial | iw
18 Pie. soa a 18
y |20 14% Wd! (ce a 20
21 1, ‘S foo 21
bad ET RS Sol, Ao|__ |__|
23 YH - fea\ 23
24 WB 24
25 | le S| | ee eh Site: Babe | CLI a, | takes 2 BONIS ON ed ers a 8 a ee ee 25
26 BS ek | dx
27 a “7
29 b feo} | | tf
y [30 f Bn 30
SE) Pe eee le ee ee 3 \Fy be a 31
32 w|e 1S 4 32
33 W127!1D | 33
ol#| ||| Clb! Btu |foty |. Jas 87 1S If Besa A uM
35 as |Z) |My 2 Fe) 135
36 ly ao! S$ 36
rc (ae Cees le a SS "il 7 ee ee a lw Weld | We Yol Pattee d | le ttlend | fLeetlarrd |PuydeX | og! ot vl tAlZol Lend | Lh A gm! Zo el ||: 37
38 w 6 2|S | - 38
39 W elds LS 39
40 HW) 132. \4 8 440.
41 Ww 13 3!\th) | eee eae 5!
42 W G8 (33 _| | 42
43 ts Not OB) Ho feel Liens | Grtank- | brtanrd— | sd oi otto} | Ao Pewee }43
44 Ww |50\S | A oe ee ee
45 ly YS | Is’ | | | | > 45
46 Wht AD Soho — —_ HR = 46
é - PAGAN A o0| OH (576 fe Plow | mtr =
48 1721 S| EA oo] oul ¥ VE 70 |e Gloz<—__| : 4s
49 lw sols | [a tsa ool Eagan” \ Ce es le [Zed Ce. mr
50 | liv bOUd) YW 0 593 \ Ha Se eee
ammarerrons To whee, (ea ELE BB Oe ENTRIES sap mnouAED In THE. | Cuties tcimmcammven tar RRR AREE Ae ome
ee or ee eel a ee a See XSAN CTE Teton, TH nada ‘ef

ene SET —-

» —- ——— = 4 ——————— —= : sha pisinets ——_ . = - aoiomaantel = nn a pee os a
#### Anthony Lewis EVANS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. Q-476.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Feb. 1, 1973.

*550Bill R. Hutto, Panama City, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and A. S. Johnston, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

JOHNSON, Judge.

The appellant appeals from a conviction by a jury of the crime of selling an hallucinogenic drug.

In his assignments of error, the appellant contends that the trial court committed seven errors, but we have reviewed the record and briefs, and all of the assignments either consolidated in the briefs or abandoned, are without merit, except Assignment #3, which is appellant’s point 1 in his brief.

This point is not without merit, but we hold that the law applicable to this point is adverse to the appellant.

The appellant and the appellee both contend that this question is of first impression. Both are in error on this question, because the Supreme Court of Florida has had this exact question before it in the case of Ruester v. Turner, 250 So.2d 264, 267 (Fla.1971), wherein we find this language:

> “We now agree with those courts that have determined that if a mistrial results, compliance with the statutory requirements is satisfied. The time for retrial then becomes a matter of discretion with the trial court, which is to be measured by constitutional standards of reasonableness and fairness under the constitutional speedy trial right. See *Glover's Case*[, 109 Mass. 340]; People v. Eickert [, 124 Ill.App.2d 394, 260 N.E.2d 465]; State v. Fromkin [, 174 Neb. 849, 120 N.W.2d 25] and State v. Dilts [, 76 N.J.L. 410, 69 A. 255], all *supra.”*

In this case, supra, in actual days, the span between the date of mistrial and retrial numbers 95. The Supreme Court added that this figure, 95, compares favorably with “our recent additional Rule of Criminal Procedure 1.191, subsection (g) 33 F.S.A., relating to mistrials in speedy trial cases.”

In our case, we find that the interval of time between the date of mistrial and the date of the new trial, which was 63 days, was both reasonable and fair under circumstances, and within subsection g, of Rule 1.191, now Rule 3.191(g).

The other points being without merit, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

SPECTOR, C. J., and RAWLS, J., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1997
<CASH>                                         208,543
<SECURITIES>                                   824,930
<RECEIVABLES>                                  234,358
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (33,053)
<INVENTORY>                                     10,656
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,470,382
<PP&E>                                         765,384
<DEPRECIATION>                               (391,519)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,910,649
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          321,956
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        35,094
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,530,323
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,910,649
<SALES>                                      1,007,311
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,007,311
<CGS>                                          277,446
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  277,446
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               929,869
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (150,570)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (72,274)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (78,296)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (78,296)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.22)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.22)
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.2
 
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 
 I, Edward B. Meyercord, III, Chief Executive Officer and President of Talk America Holdings, Inc., have reviewed Talk America Holdings, Inc.'s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2004 and, based on the inquiries I have made or caused to be made in the fulfillment of my responsibilities as the Chief Executive Officer of Talk America Holdings, Inc., I hereby certify that:
 
 (i) the Talk America Holdings, Inc. Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and (ii) the information contained in such Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of Talk America Holdings, Inc.
 
 This certificate is being made for the exclusive purpose of compliance by the Chief Executive Officer of Talk America Holdings, Inc. with the requirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and may not be used for any other purposes. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Talk America Holdings, Inc.
 
 /s/ Edward B. Meyercord, III
 Edward B. Meyercord, III
 Chief Executive Officer and President
 May 7, 2004
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6491

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. RONALD ERIC MARSHALL, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson Everett Legg, Chief District Judge. (1:00-cr-00033-BEL-3)

Submitted: July 23, 2009 Decided: July 29, 2009

Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronald Eric Marshall, Appellant Pro Se. Martin Joseph Clarke, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Ronald Eric Marshall seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of a prior order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006); Reid v. Angelone , 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. MillerEl v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Marshall has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED
#### Alton L. HARVESTON and Jack Harveston v. STATE of Mississippi.

No. 45886.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

June 8, 1970.

Richard E. Stratton, III, Brookhaven, for appellants.

A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen., by Guy N. Rogers, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Timmie Hancock, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

 

**Certification**

 

I, Bennie H. Duck, certify that:

 

1.               I have reviewed this quarterly report onForm 10-Q of First Investors Financial Services Group, Inc.

 

2.               Based on my knowledge, this report doesnot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3.               Based on my knowledge, the financial statements,and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.               The Company’s other certifyingofficer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosurecontrols and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e) for the Company and based on such evaluation:

 

a)              Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared; and

b)             Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures as of the end of the period covered by this report (based on suchevaluation); and

c)              Disclosed in this report any change inthe registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred duringthe registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscalquarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting;

 

5.               The registrant’s other certifyingofficer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal controls over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors andthe audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):

 

a)              All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting, which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b)             Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 
| Date:  | March 12, 2004     |   |   |
|--------|-------------------------|--------|--------|
|   |                    |
|   |                    |
|   | By: /s/ BENNIE H. DUCK  |   |
|   | Bennie H. Duck          |
|   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----