Source: http://docplayer.net/1235098-Filed-case-no-81-440-supreme-court-of-florida-vs-orlando-utilities-commission-etc-et-al-jim-ford-brevard-county-property-appraiser-et-al.html
Timestamp: 2017-01-17 03:11:57
Document Index: 310433323

Matched Legal Cases: ['art, 120', 'Art. 111', 'art, 120', 'Case No: 16', 'Case No: 16', 'CASE NO: 72', 'CASE NO: 72', 'CASE NO: 66', 'CASE NO: 66', 'CASE NO: 83']

⭐FILED CASE NO.: 81,440 SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. vs. ORLANDO UTILITIES COMMISSION, etc., et al., JIM FORD, Brevard County Property Appraiser, et al.
FILED CASE NO.: 81,440 SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. vs. ORLANDO UTILITIES COMMISSION, etc., et al., JIM FORD, Brevard County Property Appraiser, et al.
Download "FILED CASE NO.: 81,440 SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. vs. ORLANDO UTILITIES COMMISSION, etc., et al., JIM FORD, Brevard County Property Appraiser, et al."
1 FILED StD J. WHITE,' SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 81,440 JIM FORD, Brevard County Property Appraiser, et al., vs. Petitioners, ORLANDO UTILITIES COMMISSION, etc., et al., Respondents. / PETITIONERS' REPLY BRIEF Frank J. Grfffith, Jr. Fla. Bar No Cianfrogna, Telfer, Reda & Faherty, P.A. Post Office Drawer Titusville, FL / Attorney for Tax Collector Joe Teague Caruso Fla. Bar No Post Office Box Merritt Island, FL / and Larry E. Levy Fla. Bar No Post Office Box Tallahassee, Florida / Attorneys for Property Appra i s er2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Preliminary Statement... Statement of the Case and Statement of the Facts... Argument... POINT I THAT TBE SUBJECT PROPERTY WAS NOT BEING USED EXCLUSIVELY FOR A MUNICIPAL PURPOSE IN BREVARD COUNTY SO AS TO BE ENTITLgD TO EXEMPTION FROM AD VALOREM TAXATION.... Pase A. The decisions in Gwin and Saunders do not control the taxable status of the subject property.... B. The second sentence of Article VII, Section 3(a), Florida Constitution, does not apply to taxation but applies to a payment in lieu of taxes POINT I1 THAT THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN GRANTING OUC S MOTION FOR SUMMZ4RY JUD- FINDING THAT THE APPRAISER WAS NOT AUTHORIZED TO BACK ASSESS THE PROPERTY WHICH WAS OWNED BY OUC AND USED FOR THE RECREATIONAL PURPOSES OF ITS EMPLOYEES.... Conclusion... Certificate of Service i3 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASE ATJTEORITY: Amoa v. Mosley, 74 Fla. 555, 77 So.2d 619 (Fla. 1917)... Capital City Countrv Club v. Tucker, 613 So.2d 448 (Fla. 1993)... Dickinson v. City of Tallahassee, 325 So.2d 1 (Fla. 1975)... Gwin v. City of Tallahassee, 132 So.2d 273 (Fla. 1961)... Hillaboroush County Aviation Authority v. Walden, 210 So.2d 193 (Fla. 1968)... Orlando Utilities Commission v. Millisan, 229 So.2d 262 (Fla. 4th DCA 19791, cert denied, 237 So.2d 539 (Fla. 1970)... Paae ,13 Rosalind Holdins Co. v. Orlando Utilities Com'n, 402 So.2d 1209 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)... Saunders v. City of Jacksonville, 25 So.2d 648 (Fla. 1946)... State v. Cotney, 104 So.2d 346 (Fla. 1958)... State ex rel. Davis v. City of Homestead, 130 So. 28 (Fla. 1930)... State ex rel. Davis v. City of Stuart, 120 So. 335 (Fla. 1929)... Volusia County v. Daytona Beach Racins and Recreational Facilities Dist. 341 So.2d 498 (Fla. 1976)... Wheeler v. Mecfqs, 75 Fla. 687, 78 So.2d 685 (Fla. 1918)... Williams v. Jones, 326 So.2d 425 (Fla. 1975) ii4 FLORIDA CONSTITUTION: Art. I, Section 2, Fla. Const.... 7,8 Art. I, Section 9, Fla. Const Art. 111, Section 1, Fla. Const Art. VTI, Section 3(a), Fla. Const.... 7,11,12 Art. VIII, Section 2(c)# Fla. Const.... 7,11 Art. VIII, Section 8, Fla. Const, (1885)... 7 FLORIDA STATUTES: , Fla. Stat (1), Fla. Stat OTHER AUTHORITIES: Ch , Laws of Florida, Special Acts iii5 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT This cause is before this court on a question certified by the Fifth District Court of Appeal as a question of great public importance. The petitioners herein are Jim Ford, Brevard County Property Appraiser, and James Northcutt, Brevard County Tax Collector. Petitioner Jim Ford will be referred to herein as the "Property Appraiser" and the petitioner James Northcutt will be referred to herein as the "Tax Collector." The respondent is the Orlando Utilities Commission, which is a commission created by special act as part of the government of the City of Orlando, and will be referred to herein as llouc.ll The various amici curiae who filed a brief in support of the respondent will be referred to as the IIAmicus. References to the record on appeal will be delineated as (R:) followed by the appropriate page number. STATEMENT OF FACTS AND STATEMENT OF THE CASE These have been adequately set forth in previous briefs and need not be readdressed. However, the preliminary statement filed by the amicus contains numerous statements of fact which may or may not be accurate and which are not part of the record of the case on appeal. 16 ARGUMENT POINT I THAT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WAS NOT BEING USED EXCLUSIVELY FOR A MUNICIPAL PURPOSE IN BREVARD COUNTY SO AS TO BE ENTITLKD TO EXEMPTION FROM AD VALOREM TAXATION. A. The decisions in Gwin and Saunders do not control the taxable status of the subject property. Two misstatements of law found in the brief of OUC at page 13 and the brief of the amicus at page 9 require correction. At page 13 of its brief OUC states that the generation and transmission of electricity is a vtgovernmentaltl purpose and cites the cases of Saunders v. City of Jacksonville, 25 So.2d 648 (Fla. 1946) and Gwin v. City of Tallahasaee, 132 So.2d 273 (Fla. 1961). Neither of these cases held that auch was a ttgovernmentaltt purpose. Both only recognized that the generation of electricity waa a proprietary purpose. A proprietary purpose and a governmental purpose are totally different. See Williams v. Jones, 326 So.2d 425 (Fla. 1975). Both Saunders and Gwin only recognized that a municipality could, if authorized by law, perform the proprietary function of providing electricity to their consumers. The word tlgovernmental" imports some part of the sovereign power while a proprietary function is one which can just as easily be performed by a private entity. The amicus states in its brief on page 9 that Florida law provides sovereign immunity to counties and municipalities and Sovereign immunity only to the state, this is does not counties, an incorrect statement of the law. apply to municipalities but applies and school districts. See Dickinson 27 v. City of Tallahassee, 325 So.2d 1 (Fla. 1975) and Hillsboroush County Aviation Authority v. Walden, 210 So.2d 193 (Fla. 1968). In fact, most of the "parade of horriblesll which the amicus hypothetically addresses are premised upon the erroneous statement that the taxation of municipal property is protected by sovereign immunity. That is not the case. Municipal property is only permitted exemption as authorized by the constitution and an exemption is not the same as immunity. However, sovereign immunity of the state and counties may be waived by general law so that county and state property will be treated the same as municipal property, as has been done in section (1), Florida Statutes (1991). OUC's brief does not address the basis for the Appraiser's contention until the bottom of page 20 where OUC states: Petitioners cite the extraterritorial authority provided to the cities in Saunders and Gwin to provide electrical service, and argue that since Respondent does not have the same authority to provide electrical service in Brevard County, it can not be providing a public purpose. Respondent has consistently asserted, that it is not required to provide electrical service to the citizens and residents of Brevard County, in order to be performing a public purpose in that county, and that it has complete authority by the provisions of its Charter to exercise a public purpose in Brevard County on behalf of the citizens and residents of Orlando and Orange County. Respondent's Brief, at 20, 21. The Appraiser has consistently argued that for municipal power to be exercised extraterritosily to 38 the jurisdiction of the city, it must be provided by the legislature and, without legislative authorization, anything which a municipality may do outaide its jurisdictional boundaries would be corporate and no different for any other private corporation. In fact, OUC fixes its rates just like a private utility as was recognized in Rosalind Holdinq Co. v. Orlando Utilities Commission, 402 So.2d 1209 (Fla. 5th DCA 19911, at page 1214: However, experts for the OUC testified that the OUC's operations are more comparable to the private utilities in Florida because of its size and the fact that it has a substantial qeneratinq capacity. The municipal utilities in the Federal Power Commission's Report were considerably smaller than the OUC and may had no generative capacity. At least one public service commission allowed a city utility a rate of return on equity comparable to private industry, and the courts in our jurisdiction freauentlv equate municipal utilities with privatelv owned utilitiee. 402 So.2d at 1214 (emphasis added). The furnishing of electricity is a proprietary function which may be engaged in by a municipality if legislatively authorized. All authorities seem to be in total agreement on this. The converse of this then muat also be true which is that if a municipality is not authorized to furnish electricity or operate a power plant, then it could not do so as a municipality, but if it did do so it would not be a legislatively authorized municipal function. Both Saunders and Gwin, as OUC has now acknowledged, dealt with specific statutes which conferred extraterritorial power and jurisdiction on the involved cities to engage in the municipal function of furnishing electricity to residents and consumers 49 outside the jurisdiction of the respective cities. In the case at bar, no such statute exists, and to the contrary, the performance of the municipal proprietary purpose of generating and supplying electricity to the residents in the jurisdiction where the electric plant is located is specifically prohibited. The cases are readily distinguishable based on both the facts and the underlying law. Both Gwin and Saunders had specific legislative extraterritorial authority conferred by statute. OUC does not. The cities in Gwin and Saunders were actually supplying the electrical needs of the inhabitants and residents of the adjacent counties. OUC is not. On pages 25 and 26 of its brief OUC cites several cases decided at a time when the test for determining exemption was whether the involved property served a predominant public purpose and whether exemption would be lost by an incidental use which was not of this character. All of these cases were either expressly or impliedly overruled by the cases of Williams v. Jones, supra, and Volusia County v. Davtona Beach Racinq and Recreational Facilities Dist., 341 So.2d 498 (Fla. 1976). See footnote 4 on page 501 in Volusia County. These cases, and the cases cited on page 27 of OUC's brief are irrelevant and to not bear on the issues involved in the case at bar. The issue before this court is: Whether municipally-owned property located in an adjacent county can be exempt if such municipality is prohibited by law from furnishing municipal services (electricity) to the residenta of the other county? OUC contends that it can. They Appraiser and Collector contend 510 that it cannot. The effect of an exemption to such property in the adjacent county cannot be disputed; taxpayers in that county pay higher taxes to subsidize the exemption. Thus, a government exemption exists where no government service or benefit flows to the taxpayers supsortinq the exemption. Cases cited in the petitioners' initial brief involved situations where cities through enlargement or annexation attempted to extend their boundaries so as to include properties not receiving, and, in some instances, not capable of receiving benefits or services from the involved cities. See State ex rel. Davis v. City of Stuart, 120 So. 335 (Fla. 1929) and State ex rel. Davis v. City of Homestead, 130 So. 28 (Fla. 1930). These cases uniformly invalidated such annexation or expansion because no benefit or services were provided to the inhabitants of the expanded area on the grounds that such invasion constituted a due procees right infringement protected by the Florida Constitution. In City of Stuart the court stated that such an extension "would appear to contravene those provisions of our Declaration of Rights protecting the rights of private property such as those which prohibit the taking of private property without just compensation and guarantee the equal protection of the laws and the right to acquire, possess, and protect private property." In all these cases the legislature had specifically authorized the municipal extension challenged, but this court held that the legislature's determination was not absolute and not 611 beyond judicial review, emphasizing the protections assured under the Declaration of Rights provision of the Florida Constitution (1885). Thus, the court was reading section 1, Declaration of Rights, in para materia with, Article 111, Section 1, which conferred legislative power, and Article VIII, Section 8, Florida Constitution (1885). Although Article VIII, Section 8, Bupra, conferred the power on the legislature #I.... to establiah.... municipalities to provide for their government, to prescribe their jurisdiction and powers, and to alter or amend same....,'i this court held that such power was unrestricted, and if arbitrarily exercised so as to offend the basic rights provision of the Declaration of Rights, such legislative exercise of power would be invalidated. The Appraiser and Collector submit that in the case at bar this court should isolate Article VTI, Section 3(a), Florida Constitution (19681, as OUC contends, but should also consider Article VIII, Section 2(c), Florida Constitution (1968), and its restrictions on the exercise of extraterritorial powers by municipalities, and the basic rights provisions found in sections 2 and 9 of Article I, the Declaration of Rights. Section 2 provides : All natural persons are esual before the law and have inalienable rishta, amons which are the risht to enjoy and defend life and libertv, to pursue happiness, to be rewarded for industry, and to acquire, r, ossess and protect property; except that the ownership, inheritance, disposition and possession of real property by aliens ineligible for citizenship may be regulated or prohibited by law. No person shall be deprived of any right 712 because of race, religion or physical handicap. The taxpayers of Brevard County are treated differently from taxpavers in Orange County, in that they are required to fiscally support the furnishing of necessary government services to OUC' s property in Brevard County without any general benefit or specific service flowing to Brevard County residents. This is patent discrimination. The fundamental premise for public property exemption is that a government needn't tax itself on its property which is used for the public good, because this would simply amount to using taxpayer's money it collected through the levy of taxes to pay taxes to itself on property used for the benefit of, and providing services to the taxpayers of the taxing unit. Thus, the taxpayers subsidizing the exemption received the benefits and services flowing from the property's use. This fundamental premise is violated in the case at bar because no benefit or service flows to Brevard County taxpayers and thus they are subsidizing the taxpayers of the City of Orlando, whose tax burden is reduced by the funds generated through the operation of the electrical facility. This violates the baaic fundamental rights of Brevard County residents secured by the Florida Constitution's basic rights provision. The effect is that their taxes are increased to support the Citv of Orlando. The situation is even more oneroue because OUC pays no "franchise fee" or other payment in lieu of taxes to Brevard County as it does to Orange County and the City or Orlando. See Rosalind 813 at page 1211: Rosalind argued that certain payments made by the OUC to Oranqe County "in lieu of taxes1' and payments in the nature of franchise fees paid by the OUC to the City or Orlando were improper operatins expenses, and if disallowed as operating expenses, the results would substantially increase the OUC's income, and therefore its rate of return on capital, far above what other municipal utilities and private utilities are allowed to earn. 402 So.2d at 1211 (emphasis added). Also at page 1211 the court stated: The record established that the OUC made payments totaling approximately $1,114,000 to Orange County from 1973 through The amount of each annual eavment was based on 1% of the retail sales of electricity to the OUC's customers outside the City of Orlando, but within Oranqe County. Witnesses for the OUC teatified that these payments were somewhat less than a private utility would have paid Orange County for ad valorem taxes based on the value of OUC's property located within Oranqe Countv, and that the payments were for police and fire Drotection and other services afforded tho utility by the County. 402 So.2d at 1211, 1212 (emphasis added.) At page 1212 expert witnesses for OUC acknowledged that failure to make such payments would have the effect of discriminating against the county taxpayers stating: Expert witnesses for the OUC testified that it was not an uncommon practice in other states for tax exempt utilities to make "taxequivalentv1 payments to local governmental bodies providing them with valuable aervices. Failure to make such paments would have the effect of discriminatinq asainst the county taxpayers because they presumably would have to pay throuqh hisher taxes for the free services received by the utility. 402 So.2d at 1212 (emphasis added). If failure to make such 914 payments constituted discrimination against Orange County residents why doesn't it also operate to discriminate against Brevard County residents? No payment of any kind is made to Brevard County. There are two ways these involved constitutional provisions can be construed. OUC suggests that this court should isolate Article VII, Section 3(a), supra, and hold that since no restriction as to location is found therein, that municipally-owned property is exempt wherever located. The Appraiser suggests that all three provisions ahould be construed together, and the basic rights' provision especially cannot be ignored. No interpretation should be adopted which would lead to unconstitutionally support a constitutional basic rights infringement. Not only should a constitution be considered in its entirety, but all the provisions of a constitution should be interpreted with reference to each other. See Amos v. Moslev, 74 Fla. 555, 77 So.2d 619 (Fla , and Wheeler v. Messs, 75 Fla. 687, 78 So.2d 685 (Fla. 1918). Applying three principles, and construing the three provisions together, the petitioners suggest that a construction be adopted which recognizes all three provisions and results in no infringement of fundamental basic rights secured to the Brevard County inhabitants by section 2, Article I, Declaration of Rights. At bar, the special act involved is Chapter , Laws of Florida Special Acts 1961, and OUC argues that this statute, authorizing location of the facility in Brevard County, is sufficient to authorize exemption even though it expresslv15 prohibits supplying electricity to retail consumers in Brevard County. The result of this interpretation is that Brevard County residents are discriminated against and are required to pay taxes subsidizing the City of Orlando. In Capital City Country Club v. Tucker, 613 So.2d 448 (Fla , this court stated: If it is reaaonably possible to do so, we are obligated to interpret statutes in such a manner as to uphold their constitutionality. State v. Gale Distributors, Inc., 349 So.2d 150 (Fla. 1977). 613 So.2d at 452. Similarly, in State v. Cotnw, 104 So.2d 346 (Fla , this court stated: Nor do we find Ch , supra, amenable to the attack here made upon it. It is our duty to resolve doubts aa to constitutionality in favor of validity; and, if the Act admits of two interpretations, we should adopt that which leads to its constitutionality. Gray v. Central Florida Lumber Co., 104 Fla. 446, 140 So. 320, 141 So So.2d at 349 (emphasis added). The petitioners submit that no interpretation should be adopted which leads to an unconstitutional result or basic right infringement. OUC'a interpretation does exactly that. It means that Brevard County residents' taxes are higher, Orlando residents' taxes are lower, and Brevard County residents receive no municipal benefit in return. Between these two interpretationa, the petitioners submit that this court should adopt that interpretation which recognizes the constitution in its entirety, which construes tosether the basic rights provision, Article VII, Section 3(a), and Article VIII, Section 2(c), supra, which supports the validity of the 1116 special acts, and which leads to no unconstitutional result or basic rights infringement. B. The second sentence of Article VII, Section 3 (a) I Florida Constitution, does not apply to taxation but applies to a payment in lieu of taxes. Argument under this point was adequately made in petitioners' initial brief. POINT I1 THAT THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN GRANTING OUC'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUD- FINDING TEAT "HE APPRAISER WAS NOT AUTHORIZED TO BACK ASSESS THE PROPERTY WHICH WAS OWNED BY OUC AND USED FOR THE RECREATIONAL PURPOSES OF ITS EMPLOYEES. OUC had exempt status for the llapollo Campground, I' until 1989 and 1990 when it says it chose... not to seek exempt status for that particular property....i1 at p. 35.) (Respondent'a brief It states that there is no record of the use in this file, but that is because summary judgment was granted. OUC states that Mr. Ford's predecessor ll.... had exercised his judgment as property appraiser and granted exemption....i1 in prior years. The Appraiser submits that this is not truly accurate since no applications were filed as required by section , Florida Statutes (1991). The city knew of its use of the playground and knew of the decision in Orlando Utilities Commission v. Millisan, 229 So.2d 262 (Fla. 4th DCA 19791, cert. denied, 237 So.2d 539 (Fla. 1980), and its holding. It had a duty 1217 to properly return this property through application claiming exemption. A property appraiser should be able to expect good faith from municipalities and if doubt existed as to the exemption, which the city knew certainly did exist because of Millisan, application should have been made. If this playground was not taxable in prior years why did OUC not seek exemption on the playground beginning in 1989? Conclusion For the above and foregoing reasons the Appraiser and Collector respectfully submit that the district court's decision should be reversed and that this court should find that the property of OUC located in Brevard County is taxable. RESPECTFtTLLY SUBMITTED, Frank J. Griffith, Jr. Fla. Bar No Cianfrogna, Telfer, Reda & Faherty, P.A. Post Office Drawer Titusville, FL / Attorney for Tax Collector Joe Teague Caruso Fla. Bar No Post Office Box Merritt Island, FL / and 1318 R Larry E.& ~evyt' Fla. Bar No Post Office Box Tallahassee, Florida / Attorneys for Property Appraiser CERTIFICATE OF SERVICB I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished by U.S. Mail to!eiomas B. TART, ESQUIRE, Orlando Utilities Commission, Post Office Box 3193, Orlando, Florida 32802; LEON H. -LEY, ESQUIRE, and ROBERT S. GREEN, ESQUIRE, Gurney & Bandley, P.A., Post Office Box 1273, Orlando, Florida 32802; STE" R. BECHTEL, ESQUIRE, Mateer, Harbert & Bates, P.A., Post Office Box 2854, Orlando, Florida 32802; KRAIG A. COW, ESQUIRE, Florida League of Cities, Post Office Box 1757, Tallahassee, Florida 32302; FREDERICK M. BRYANT, ESQUIRE, Moore, Williams, Bryant, Peebles & Gautier, P.A., Post Office Box 1169, Tallahassee, Florida 32302; and WILLIAM J. PEEBLES, ESQUIRE, Moore, Williams, Bryant, Peebles & Gautier, P.A., Post Office Box 1169, Tallahassee, Florida on this r the 18th day of June, Larr E. L 14 Similar documents
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Case No. 80,158 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS HERNANDO COUNTY, etc., et al. VS. Petitioner, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, Respondent. 22 1993 CLERK, SUPREME COURT. More information 304 Palermo Avenue Coral Gables, FL 33134 (305) 444-5925 I N THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 70,179
I N THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 70,179 JUAN DOMINGUEZ and GRACIELA DOMINGUEZ, Petitioners, BUCYRUS-ERIE COMPANY, Respondent. PETITIONERS' REPLY BRIEF ON THE MERITS LISA BENNETT, ESQUIRE 304 Palermo More information IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC11-1512
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA STATE OF FLORIDA, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO.: SC11-1512 GREGORY G. GEISS, Respondent. / AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF BY FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS (FACDL) ON BEHALF More information IN THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA. Petitioner/Appellant below DCA Case No.: 1D04-2453. v. JUDGE : David Langham
IN THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA Robert Flamily Case No.: SC06-847 Petitioner/Appellant below DCA Case No.: 1D04-2453 v. JUDGE : David Langham City of Orlando and City of Orlando Risk Management More information David P. Healy of Law Offices of David P. Healy, PL, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA JAMES E. MAGEE, v. Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE NO. 1D07-2050 More information IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA. CASE NO. SC11-1445 First District Court of Appeal Case No. 1D10-4072. LEONARD J. ACCARDO, et al, Petitioners,
IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC11-1445 First District Court of Appeal Case No. 1D10-4072 LEONARD J. ACCARDO, et al, Petitioners, v. GREGORY BROWN, Property Appraiser of Santa Rosa County, More information Supreme Court of Florida
Supreme Court of Florida No. SC04-110 AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA RULES OF WORKERS COMPENSATION PROCEDURE [December 2, 2004] PER CURIAM. The Florida Bar s Workers Compensation Rules Committee has filed its More information No. 71,104. [October 13, 19881
No. 71,104 BENJAMIN U. SANDLIN, Petitioner, CRIMINAL JUSTICE STANDARDS & TRAINING COMMISSION, Respondent. [October 13, 19881 A district court of appeal has certified the following question as being of More information UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION
Davies et al v. Attorney General of the United States et al Doc. 35 JEFF DAVIES and MANUELA DAVIES, Plaintiffs, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION -vs- Case No. 6:10-cv-1622-Orl-31GJK More information RESPONDENT'S ANSWER BRIEF JAMES H. WHITE, JR. STAATS, WHITE & CLARKE. Florida Bar No.: 309303. 229 McKenzie Avenue. Panama City, Florida 32401
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA FILED THE TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY and THE PHOENIX INSURANCE COMPANY, vs. Petitioners, CASE NO.: 85,337 BRETT ALLAN WARREN, Personal DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL Representative More information ORANGE COUNTY, et al.,
_1 No. 80,685 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Petitioner, vs. ORANGE COUNTY, et al., Respondents. [June 17, 19931 KOGAN, J. We have for review Orange County v. Florida Departmei?'; -- :IE - Revenue, 605 More information IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. v. Case No. SC12-1507 ON PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM THE SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA REGINALD BRYANT, PETITIONER, v. Case No. SC12-1507 STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT, ON PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM THE SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA JURISDICTIONAL More information IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA. Case Number: SC10-390 Lower Tribunal Case Nos.: 1D07-5561, 1D07-5557 (Consolidated)
IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA Case Number: SC10-390 Lower Tribunal Case Nos.: 1D07-5561, 1D07-5557 (Consolidated) FLORIDA BIRTH-RELATED NEUROLOGICAL INJURY COMPENSATION ASSOCIATION, Petitioner, More information IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA RESPONDENT'S ANSWER BRIEF W+ CLINTON WALLACE, ESQUIRE. J^s . CLINTON WALLACE, P.A.
IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA NATIONWIDE m A L FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, vs. Petitioner, ) CASE NO. 82,832 ) RICHARD D. POUNDERS, as Personal Representative of the Estate of More information SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC02-152 KEVIN M. STEELE, Petitioner, vs. SUSAN B. KINSEY and UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondents.
SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC02-152 KEVIN M. STEELE, Petitioner, vs. SUSAN B. KINSEY and UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondents. On Review from the Second District Court of Appeal, Case More information SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA PETITIONER S INITIAL BRIEF ON JURISDICTION
AA-53816-5/reo/20330947 L.T. CASE NO. 5D06-3639 SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA RANDALL B. WHITNEY, M.D., JAMES SCOTT PENDERGRAFT, IV, M.D., and ORLANDO WOMEN'S CENTER, INC., a Florida corporation, Petitioners, More information Circuit Court, D. Louisiana. Nov. Term, 1870.
YesWeScan: The FEDERAL CASES Case No. 7,052. [1 Woods, 85.] 1 INSURANCE CO. V. NEW ORLEANS. Circuit Court, D. Louisiana. Nov. Term, 1870. FOREIGN CORPORATIONS TAXATION FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO CONSTITUTION More information pr'e, CLER, SUPREME COURT
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA pr'e, CLER, SUPREME COURT BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, PINEUAS COUNTY, FLORIDA, Petitioner, vs. Case No. 79,839 TOM F. SAWYER, By Chief Deputy Clerk Respondent. Second More information SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC02-152 KEVIN M. STEELE, Petitioner, vs. SUSAN B. KINSEY and UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondents. ON DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL, More information May 23, 1996 AGO 96-039. Mr. James D. Palermo Tampa City Attorney 315 East Kennedy Boulevard Fifth Floor Tampa, Florida 33602. Dear Mr.
May 23, 1996 AGO 96-039 Mr. James D. Palermo Tampa City Attorney 315 East Kennedy Boulevard Fifth Floor Tampa, Florida 33602 Dear Mr. Palermo: You ask substantially the following question: Which value More information IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. v. CASE NO. SC07-95 AMICUS BRIEF OF THE FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS, IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA STATE OF FLORIDA, Petitioner, v. CASE NO. SC07-95 GLENN KELLY, Respondent. / AMICUS BRIEF OF THE FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS, IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT More information On November 2, 2009, the presiding officer submitted her Recommended Order
STATE OF FLORIDA STATE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION DONALD GILBERT, Petitioner, vs. ) Case No. 2009-1548 ) STATE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION, ) ) Respondent. ) ) ) FINAL ORDER On November 2, 2009, the presiding More information / s D. WW TE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. vs. MARGARITA J. PALMA,
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA / s D. WW TE STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY, vs. Petitioner CASE NO. 78,766 MARGARITA J. PALMA, Respondent PETITIONER S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION J CHARLES W. MUSGROVE, More information OPN 01-011. Aug 21, 2001
OPN 01-011 Aug 21, 2001 H.W. "Bill" Suber, CFA, ASA Seminole County Property Appraiser Seminole County Services Building 1101 East First Street Sanford, Florida 32771 Re: Applications for Educational Exemption More information IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 67,398
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 67,398 NANCY C. VILDIBILL, as personal Representative of the Estate off Steven Allen Paul, deceased, Petitioner-Appellant, EDDIE JOHNSON, AAA COOPER TRANSPORTATION, More information IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 04-1461 STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellant, vs. SEAN E. CREGAN, Appellee.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 04-1461 STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellant, vs. SEAN E. CREGAN, Appellee. ************************************************************** ** ON APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT More information IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC11-1173 L.T. NO. 3D10-488. JOAN RUBLE, as Personal Representative of the Estate of LANCE RUBLE, deceased,
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC11-1173 L.T. NO. 3D10-488 JOAN RUBLE, as Personal Representative of the Estate of LANCE RUBLE, deceased, Petitioner, vs. RINKER MATERIALS CORPORATION, RINKER More information v. CASE NO.: CVA1 09-16 Lower Court Case No.: 2008-CC-7009-O
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA ELOURDE COLIN, Appellant, v. CASE NO.: CVA1 09-16 Lower Court Case No.: 2008-CC-7009-O PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN INSURANCE More information ESCAMBIA COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, ET AL., 1st District - No. 94-1950 CITY OF LAKELAND'S AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA st:; J. bv-!lte ESCAMBIA COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, ET AL., V. Appellants, CASE NO.: 86,327 District Court of Appeal, 1st District - No. 94-1950 THOMAS GRICE, Appellee More information IN THE CIRCUIT COURT, FOURTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA. Case No: 16-2001-CF-2576-AXXX Division: CR-G WILLIAM JOE JARVIS. vs.
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT, FOURTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA Case No: 16-2001-CF-2576-AXXX Division: CR-G WILLIAM JOE JARVIS vs. STATE OF FLORIDA DEFENDANT-APPELLANT JARVIS S MOTION More information PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION
PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION AN ASSESSOR S GUIDE 2005 ASSESSMENT COORDINATION DEPARTMENT STATE OF ARKANSAS PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION AN ASSESSORS GUIDE 2005 PURPOSE: The Assessor is responsible for making the decision More information This is the third appearance of this statutory matter before this Court. This
In the Supreme Court of Georgia Decided: May 6, 2013 S13A0079 (A4-003). CITY OF COLUMBUS et al. v. GEORGIA DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION et al. S13X0080 (X4-004). CBS OUTDOOR, INC. et al. v. CITY OF COLUMBUS. More information IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO: 72,878
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO: 72,878 FLORIDA PATIENT'S COMPENSATION FUND; ENRIQUE MORALES, M.D., AND WHITE, KUMP, AND MORALES, M.D., P.A., I PETITIONERS, vs. CLARA M. SCHERER, ET AL., c RESPONDENTS. More information SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF BILL DONEGAN, ORANGE COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER
SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA PEDRO GARCIA, as Property Appraiser of Miami-Dade Case No.: SC11-554 County, Florida, et al. L.T. No.: 3D09-3427 v. Petitioners, DAVID ANDONIE, et. al., Respondents. / AMICUS CURIAE More information ... IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA CASE NO: 66,025 BRUCE WAXMAN, Petitioner, JOSEPH TILLMAN, et a1., Respondents.
... IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA CASE NO: 66,025 BRUCE WAXMAN, Petitioner, v. JOSEPH TILLMAN, et a1., Respondents. BRIEF OF CROSS-PETITIONER TILLMAN ON JURISDICTION KOCHA & HOUSTON, More information IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
WILLIE E. BROWN and BRENDA BROWN, husband and wife, IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA v. Petitioners, CASE NO.: SC10-868 FOURTH DCA CASE NO.: 4D09-4140 KIM J. NAGELHOUT, individually, HELENA More information Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and J. Clifton Cox, Special Counsel, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA VERIZON BUSINESS PURCHASING, LLC, v. Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED More information [Cite as Rogers v. Dayton, 118 Ohio St.3d 299, 2008-Ohio-2336.]
[Cite as Rogers v. Dayton, 118 Ohio St.3d 299, 2008-Ohio-2336.] ROGERS v. CITY OF DAYTON ET AL., APPELLEES; STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO., APPELLANT. [Cite as Rogers v. Dayton, 118 Ohio St.3d More information IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. : Case No. DISCRETIONARY REVIEW OF DECISION OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA JAMES C. BABER, Petitioner, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. : : : Case No. : : : 96,010 DISCRETIONARY REVIEW OF DECISION OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA FOURTH More information IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA STATE OF FLORIDA, Petitioner, v. Case No. SC01-2558 PAUL VANBEBBER, Respondent. ON PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM THE SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA REPLY BRIEF More information FILED AND. TARASKA, GROWER, UNGER & KETCHAM, P.A. Ateorneys for Defendants SHIRLEY DOELFEL, ET VIR. vs. THOMAS P. TREVISANI, M.D., ET AL. Respondents.
SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA SHIRLEY DOELFEL, ET VIR. vs. Petitioners, CASE NO: 83,218 District Court of Appeal 5th District - No. 93-2808 FILED THOMAS P. TREVISANI, M.D., ET AL. Respondents. I RESPONDENTS', More information ON REVIEW FROM THE FOURTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA INITIAL BRIEF OF PETITIONERS, JAMIE BARDOL AND LORI BARDOL
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC00-600 DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL 4th DISTRICT NO. 98-2918 JAMIE BARDOL AND LORI BARDOL, v. MARY MARTIN, Petitioners, Respondent. / ON REVIEW FROM THE FOURTH DISTRICT More information IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT D E C I S I O N. Rendered on December 28, 2012
[Cite as City of Columbus, Div. of Taxation v. Moses, 2012-Ohio-6199.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT City of Columbus, Division of Taxation, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : No. 12AP-266 More information Please see Section IX. for Additional Information:
The Florida Senate BILL ANALYSIS AND FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT (This document is based on the provisions contained in the legislation as of the latest date listed below.) BILL: CS/SB 972 Prepared By: The More information IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA
TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, vs. Petitioner, JAMES H. QUIRK and MARIE QUIRK, husband and wife, vs. Respondents, Cross-Petitioners, IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA SOUTHERN AMERICAN More information 2015 IL App (5th) 140227-U NO. 5-14-0227 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIFTH DISTRICT
NOTICE Decision filed 10/15/15. The text of this decision may be changed or corrected prior to the filing of a Petition for Rehearing or the disposition of the same. 2015 IL App (5th 140227-U NO. 5-14-0227 More information IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
STATE OF FLORIDA, et al., Defendant/Appellant, IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA v. Case No. JEA (formerly known as the Jacksonville Electric Authority), a body politic and corporate of the STATE OF FLORIDA, More information SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC05-220 INITIAL BRIEF OF APPELLANT
SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION Appellant, vs. CASE NO. SC05-220 RICARDO CAGNOLI, ET AL. Appellees. / INITIAL BRIEF OF APPELLANT DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION On Appeal of More information DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT July Term 2011
MAY, C.J. DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT July Term 2011 STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. LOUIS SILBER and ILENE SILBER, Appellees. Nos. 4D10-1549 and More information IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA APPEAL NO. 71,853 RESPONDENTS' BRIEF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA APPEAL NO. 71,853 AARON SCHNEIDER, M.D. and A. SCHNEIDER, M.D., P.A. Petitioners, UNDERWRITERS' ADJUSTING CO./ THE FAMILY MART, Respondents. RESPONDENTS' BRIEF PETER H. More information CHAPTER 7 UNIFORM COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE RULES
CHAPTER 7 UNIFORM COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE RULES Section 1. Authority. These Uniform County Board of Equalization Practice and Procedure Rules are promulgated by authority of More information STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA CONDOMINIUMS, TIMESHARES AND MOBILE HOMES
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA CONDOMINIUMS, TIMESHARES AND MOBILE HOMES IN RE: PETITION FOR ARBITRATION Wood Street Condominium Association, Inc., More information v. CASE NO.: 2008-CA-031152-O WRIT NO.: 08-69
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA ARIEL ALAMO, Petitioner, v. CASE NO.: 2008-CA-031152-O WRIT NO.: 08-69 STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY More information Case 3:07-cv-01180-TEM Document 56 Filed 04/27/2009 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA ALFA VISION INSURANCE CORPORATION, v. Appellant, TAMPA CHIROPRACTIC CENTER a/a/o VICTOR GUE, CASE NO.: 2011-CV-87 Lower More information IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, CASE NO.: 2014-CV-000005-A-O Lower Case No.: 2012-SC-012076-O v. EMERGENCY More information IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. v. S.C. Case No.: SC02-796 Lower Ct. Case No.: 1D01-1073 PETITIONER S REPLY BRIEF ON THE MERITS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA EVELYN BARLOW, as Personal Representative of the Estate of SAMUEL EDWARD BARLOW and EVELYN BARLOW, individually, Petitioner, v. S.C. Case No.: SC02-796 Lower Ct. Case No.: More information L.T. CASE NO.: CL 92 12961 AJ. Pet it ioner, Fla. Bar SUPREME CT CASE # 86,434 GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, SUSAN KRAWZAK, Respondent.
SUPREME CT CASE # 86,434 4DCA CASE NO.: 94-693 PALM BEACH L.T. CASE NO.: CL 92 12961 AJ GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, Pet it ioner, VS * SUSAN KRAWZAK, Respondent. PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY More information Case No. A10-1740 STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS. American Bank of St. Paul, successor in interest to 2700 East Lake Street, LLC,
Case No. A10-1740 STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS American Bank of St. Paul, successor in interest to 2700 East Lake Street, LLC, Appellant/ Cross-Respondent, vs. City of Minneapolis, Respondent/Cross-Appellant. More information Counsel for Petitioner
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA BENJAMIN BILLER, Petitioner, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. CASE NO. Fourth DCA Case No. 9-3446 PETITIONER'S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION RICHARD L. JORANDBY Public Defender More information IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED JUSTIN LAMAR JONES, Petitioner, v. Case More information AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA. KIM WALLANT and LOUIS BOREK, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, vs. Plaintiffs, FREEDOM More information IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. v. L.T. CASE NO.: 1D06-5352 PETITIONER S JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, Petitioner, Case No.: v. L.T. CASE NO.: 1D06-5352 JON ALLEN DANCY, Respondent. / PETITIONER S JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF On Discretionary More information v. CASE NO.: 2007-CA-13354-O Writ No.: 07-60 STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY & MOTOR VEHICLES, DIVISION OF DRIVER LICENSES,
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA STEPHEN SMITH, Petitioner, v. CASE NO.: 2007-CA-13354-O Writ No.: 07-60 STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY More information v. CASE NO. 1D06-389
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA YVETTE HANNON, as personal representative of the Estate of Nathan Scott Hannon, and on behalf of all survivors, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES More information THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT PETITIONER S BRIEF ON THE MERITS
LINDA CRAWFORD, vs. Petitioner. JANNIE BARKER, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Manuel R. Crawford, Respondent. THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT / S. Ct. Case No. SC09-1969 CASE No.: 3D08-2251 PETITIONER More information SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Case No.: SC05-1864
SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Case No.: SC05-1864 BRANDON REGIONAL HOSPITAL, vs. Petitioner, MARIA MURRAY and DANIEL S. MURRAY, et. al. Respondents. ON DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL, More information NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO
Supreme Court of Florida No. SC04-1461 CANTERO, J. STATE OF FLORIDA, Petitioner, vs. SEAN E. CREGAN, Respondent. [July 7, 2005] We must decide whether a court may grant jail-time credit for time spent More information IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA (Lower Court Case No.: 4D05-746) CASE NO. SC05-1395 STATE OF FLORIDA, Petitioner, vs. JEFFREY LOVELACE, Respondent.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA (Lower Court Case No.: 4D05-746) CASE NO. SC05-1395 STATE OF FLORIDA, Petitioner, vs. JEFFREY LOVELACE, Respondent. ****************************************** PETITIONER=S More information IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Petitioner, CASE NO. 55,387 THOMAS JOHN CURTIN, etc., Respondents.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPA:;TY, etc., VS. Petitioner, CASE NO. 55,387 THOMAS JOHN CURTIN, etc., Respondents. 1 BRIEF OF PETITIONER, STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE More information IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA BARBRA R. JOYNER, Appellant, CASE NO.: 2012-CV-000003-A-O Lower Case No.: 2010-CC-010676-O v. ONE THOUSAND OAKS, INC., More information IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWELFTH CIRCUIT IN AND FOR SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA
MICHAEL BARFIELD, IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWELFTH CIRCUIT IN AND FOR SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA Plaintiff, Case No.: IMMEDIATE HEARING v. REQUESTED PURSUANT TO Fla. Stat. 119.11 (2009) BERNADETTE DIPINO, More information STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA LAND SALES, CONDOMINIUMS, AND MOBILE HOMES
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA LAND SALES, CONDOMINIUMS, AND MOBILE HOMES IN RE: PETITION FOR ARBITRATION BERMUDA CLUB MANAGEMENT COUNSEL, INC., More information Case 0:07-cv-60771-JIC Document 30 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/07 09:36:18 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case 0:07-cv-60771-JIC Document 30 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/07 09:36:18 Page 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MRI SCAN CENTER, INC., on itself and all others similarly situated, More information aourt of jmlrlba vs. of Appeal certified the following question as being of great OF THE PRESENTENCE INVESTIGATION? Petitioners, Respondent.
1u aourt of jmlrlba No. 81,763 POLAKOFF BAIL BONDS, etc., et al., Petitioners, vs. ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA, etc. Respondent. KOGAN, J. [April 14, 19941 We have for review Polakoff Bail Bonds v. Osanse Countv, More information Attorneys for Petitioners IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA. State of Florida. Suite 1003 19 West Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33130. vs.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 86,969 DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL CASE NO.: 94-2424 STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY and STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY vs. Petitioners, More information Case 8:08-cv-00935-EAK-MSS Document 24 Filed 09/22/2008 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION
Case 8:08-cv-00935-EAK-MSS Document 24 Filed 09/22/2008 Page 1 of 6 ELIZABETH GUANZON RETUYA a/k/a ELIZABETH DRUMMOND-RETUYA Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION More information CASE NO. 1D14-2655. David K. Miller, of Broad and Cassel, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA PROVIDENT GROUP- CONTINUUM PROPERTIES, L.L.C., A FLORIDA NOT FOR PROFIT LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF More information IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC04-1012
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC04-1012 CAROLYN R. WADE, f/k/a CAROLYN R. HIRSCHMAN, Petitioner, v. L.T. No. 5D03-2797 MICHAEL D. HIRSCHMAN, Respondent. ON REVIEW FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF More information Supreme Court of Florida
Supreme Court of Florida POLSTON, J. No. SC14-1282 VICKI THOMAS, et al., Appellants, vs. CLEAN ENERGY COASTAL CORRIDOR, etc., et al., Appellees. [October 1, 2015] This case is before the Court on appeal More information STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA LAND SALES, CONDOMINIUMS, AND MOBILE HOMES
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA LAND SALES, CONDOMINIUMS, AND MOBILE HOMES IN RE: PETITION FOR ARBITRATION EDWIN L. STANLEY, JR. and SANDRA D. STANLEY, More information CITY OF CLEVELAND LABORERS INTERNATIONAL UNION LOCAL 1099
[Cite as Cleveland v. Laborers Internatl. Union Local 1099, 2009-Ohio-6313.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 92983 CITY OF CLEVELAND More information CASE NO. 1D09-0765. Rhonda B. Boggess of Taylor, Day, Currie, Boyd & Johnson, Jacksonville, for Appellant.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA ATHENA F. GRAINGER, as personal representative of the ESTATE OF SAMUEL GUS FELOS, Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION More information IN THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT DISCRETIONARY REVIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL SECOND DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
IN THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA, Petitioner, vs. Case No. 74,251 ROBERT L. JOHNSON, Respondent. I DISCRETIONARY REVIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL SECOND DISTRICT OF FLORIDA More information IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY AND MOTOR VEHICLES, v. Petitioner, Case No. SC08-2394 District Court Case No. 2D07-4891 GEORGE F. McLAUGHLIN, Respondent. AMICUS BRIEF More information IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL SECOND DISTRICT, LAKELAND, FLORIDA. v. Case No.: 2D11- PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION
MARGARITA WHIDDEN, DON J. PEREZ, and PEREZ & PEREZ, M.D., P.A. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL SECOND DISTRICT, LAKELAND, FLORIDA Petitioners, L.T. Case No. 08-DR-2175 v. Case No.: 2D11- HONORABLE CATHERINE More information IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PASCO COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION PLAINTIFF S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
WILLIAM SUMMERS, IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PASCO COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION Plaintiff, v. Case No.: 2007 CA 5232 WS/H SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. / More information CHARTER GOVERNMENT. Clerk Buddy Irby (Alachua) Clerk Bob Inzer (Leon) Clerk Barry Baker, (Suwannee) Susan Churuti, Esq. (Bryant Miller Olive)
CHARTER GOVERNMENT Clerk Buddy Irby (Alachua) Clerk Bob Inzer (Leon) Clerk Barry Baker, (Suwannee) Susan Churuti, Esq. (Bryant Miller Olive) The Florida Constitution In 1821 Andrew Jackson issues first More information IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC05-1150
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC05-1150 IN RE: PETITION TO AMEND RULE 4-1.5(f) OF THE RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT / COMMENTS OF RAQUEL A. RODRIGUEZ, GENERAL COUNSEL TO GOVERNOR JEB BUSH, IN More information CITY OF ORLANDO v. NATURAL GAS & APPLIANCE CO., 57 So.2d 853, (Fla. 1952) CITY OF ORLANDO. NATURAL GAS & APPLIANCE CO., Inc.
CITY OF ORLANDO v. NATURAL GAS & APPLIANCE CO., 57 So.2d 853, (Fla. 1952) CITY OF ORLANDO v. NATURAL GAS & APPLIANCE CO., Inc. Supreme Court of Florida, Special Division B. Decided Mar 21, 1952. Rehearing More information SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2005 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus More information In the Court of Appeals of Georgia
FIRST DIVISION PHIPPS, C. J., ELLINGTON, P. J., and MCMILLIAN, J. NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be physically received in our clerk s office within ten days of the date of decision to be deemed More information IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SCO4-380. SOUTHERN BAPTIST HOSPITAL OF FLORIDA, INC., a corporation, Petitioner, JEFFREY W.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SCO4-380 SOUTHERN BAPTIST HOSPITAL OF FLORIDA, INC., a corporation, Petitioner, v. JEFFREY W. WELKER, Respondent. On Review from the First District Court of Appeal More information : SCHOOL ETHICS COMMISSION
: IN THE MATTER : BEFORE THE : SCHOOL ETHICS COMMISSION OF : : Docket No.: C11-03 WILLIAM PATTERSON : SOMERDALE BOARD OF EDUCATION : DECISION CAMDEN COUNTY : : PROCEDURAL HISTORY The above matter arises More information No. 70,689. [April 28, 19881
No. 70,689 SUE A HIGLEY, et al., Petitioners, VS. FLORIDA PATIENT'S COMPENSATION FUND, Respondent. [April 28, 19881 KOGAN, J. The Fourth District Court of Appeal has certified the following question as More information SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA BRIEF OF FLORIDA WORKERS ADVOCATES AS AMICUS CURIAE
SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA S. Ct. Case No.: SC03-368 RODRIGO AGUILERA and PATRICIA AGUILERA, his wife, vs. Petitioners, INSERVICES, INC. f/k/a MANAGED CARE USA SERVICES, INC., a North Carolina Corporation, More information NO. CV 11 6010197 JEFFERSON ALLEN, EVITA ALLEN : SUPERIOR COURT. v. : JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF : NEW BRITAIN
NO. CV 11 6010197 JEFFERSON ALLEN, EVITA ALLEN : SUPERIOR COURT : TAX SESSION v. : JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF : NEW BRITAIN KEVIN SULLIVAN, COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE SERVICES : APRIL 29, 2015 MEMORANDUM OF DECISION More information IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
FOR PUBLICATION ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ROBERT M. EDWARDS, JR. Jones Obenchain, LLP South Bend, Indiana ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: KATHRYN A. MOLL Nation Schoening Moll Fortville, Indiana IN THE COURT OF APPEALS More information Supreme Court of Florida
Supreme Court of Florida No. SC02-2659 CYNTHIA CLEFF NORMAN, Petitioner, vs. TERRI LAMARRIA FARROW, Respondent. [June 24, 2004] WELLS, J. We have for review Norman v. Farrow, 832 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 1st DCA More information 2017 © DocPlayer.net Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Feedback