green
Positive treatment
25.4 score
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Davis v. State of Florida
Cf. Anderson v. State, 93 So. 3d 1201, 1206 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (“Counsel cannot sandbag a trial judge by requesting and approving something they know will result in an automatic reversal, if given.” (internal quotations, brackets, and ellipsis omitted)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Fetzer v. State of Florida (Desoto)
While we question whether Florida’s statute of limitations even applies to a Jimmy Ryce proceeding initiated when, as here, a defendant is in lawful custody, see Anderson v. State, 93 So. 3d 1201, 1209 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (Padovano, J., concurring) (“It is doubtful that the statute of limitations can be applied at all in a Jimmy Ryce Act proceedings, as there is no point at which the action can be said to have accrued.”), prohibition is not available to review an allegedly erroneous order from the trial court rejecting an affirmative defense in a civil proceeding based on the statute of …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
City of Miami Beach v. Adalberto Cosme
See e.g., Thomas v. State, 730 So. 2d 667, 668 (Fla. 1998) (“Where counsel communicates to the trial judge his acceptance of the procedure employed, 8 the issue will be considered waived.”); Ashley v. State, 642 So. 2d 837, 838 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (“[T]he [appellant] can[not] take advantage on appeal of the situation he created at trial.”); Krasnick v. State, 691 So. 2d 523, 524 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (concluding appellate review of issue raised for first time on appeal has been waived); Bryan v. Bryan, 930 So. 2d 693, 697 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (“[U]nder the invited-error doctrine, a party …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
DANIEL FETZER vs STATE OF FLORIDA, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, ET AL.
While we question whether Florida’s statute of limitations even applies to a Jimmy Ryce proceeding initiated when, as here, a defendant is in lawful custody, see Anderson v. State, 93 So. 3d 1201, 1209 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (Padovano, J., concurring) (“It is doubtful that the statute of limitations can be applied at all in a Jimmy Ryce Act proceeding, as there is no point at which the action can be said to have accrued.”), prohibition is not available to review an allegedly erroneous order from the trial court rejecting an affirmative defense in a civil proceeding based on the statute of l…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Chris Beckstrom v. Julie Beckstrom
We also find no merit in the former husband’s argument on the life insurance issue. “‘Under the invited error rale, a party cannot successfully complain about an error for which he or she is responsible or of rulings that he or she invited the court to make.’ ” Anderson v. State, 93 So.3d 1201, 1203 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (quoting Muina v. Canning, 111 So.2d 550, 553-54 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Derek Jamal Flowers v. State of Florida
The invited error doctrine is succinct: “[A] party cannot.successfully complain about an error, for which he or she is responsible or of rulings that he or she *1208 invited the court to make.” Anderson v. State, 93 So.3d 1201, 1203 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012).
cited
Cited "see"
Ted K. Brown, former husband v. Valerie Hays Brown, Former Wife
See Anderson v. State, 93 So.3d 1201, 1206 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
JUAN FRANCISCO VEGA v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA
See Barron v. State, 217 So. 3d 1088, 1091 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (allowing trial court to weigh and consider competing expert testimony to determine if the probable cause threshold is met); see also Vega v. Dep't of Child. and Fams., 215 So. 3d 193 , 194 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (“The trial court properly found the statute at issue to be constitutional.”); see also Anderson v. State, 93 So. 3d 1201, 1209 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (Padovano, J., concurring) (“It is doubtful that the statute of limitations can be applied at all in a Jimmy Ryce Act proceeding, as there is no point at which the action can …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Evans v. State
The well-recognized purpose of the Ryce Act is to “protect society from sexually violent predators.” Parole Comm’n v. Smith, 896 So.2d 966, 968 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. denied, 911 So.2d 793 (Fla.2005); see also Anderson v. State, 93 So.3d 1201 , 1210 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012 (Padovano, J., concurring) (“The purpose of the Jimmy Ryce Act is to isolate and treat persons who are presently dangerous.” (emphasis in original); State v. Ducharme, 881 So.2d 70, 74 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (‘“[t]he purpose of the Act is to protect society from repeat acts of predatory sexual violence’ ”) (quoting Si…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Eric NOVESHEN
v.
LAW OFFICES OF BARRY FRANKLIN & ASSOCIATES, and Christine Noveshen, n/k/a Christina Carter
v.
LAW OFFICES OF BARRY FRANKLIN & ASSOCIATES, and Christine Noveshen, n/k/a Christina Carter
No. 4D12-892.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Aug 8, 2012.
Erie L. Noveshen, Fort Lauderdale, pro se., Barry S. Franklin of Barry S. Franklin & Associates, P.A., Aventura, for respondent The Law Firm of Barry S. Franklin & Associates, P.A.
Gerber, Gross, Warner.
Published
PER CURIAM.
We grant the petition for writ of certio-rari and quash the trial court’s order granting the respondent’s motion to compel compliance with outstanding discovery in aid of execution directed to him, which was entered ex parte despite petitioner having filed an objection to the discovery. The court entered the order pursuant to Local Rule 10A of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit which permits the entry of an ex parte order compelling discovery where there has been a complete failure to respond or object to discovery.
The ex parte order is quashed, as the petitioner had filed objections and a motion for protective order prior to the motion to compel being filed. As we held in Waters v. American General Corp., 770 So.2d 1275 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000), the local rule can apply only where the conditions in the order are met, namely the failure to respond at all to discovery requests. That condition was not met in this case. The rules of civil procedure apply and require proper notice of the motion and hearing.
WARNER, GROSS and GERBER, JJ., concur.