Schickedanz Bros.-Riviera Ltd. v. Harris, 82 So. 3d 928 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). · Go Syfert
Search
Schickedanz Bros.-Riviera Ltd. v. Harris, 82 So. 3d 928 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
4 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: REGINA HAWKINS v. STATE OF FLORIDA (fladistctapp, 2019-03-06)
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) REGINA HAWKINS v. STATE OF FLORIDA
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2019 · confidence medium
“A writ of prohibition is an appropriate remedy ‘where an accused has been denied [her] right to a speedy trial and [her] motion for discharge has been denied.’” Dempsey v. State, 82 So. 3d 928, 929 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (quoting Sherrod v. Franza, 427 So. 2d 161, 163 (Fla. 1983)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) JULIO RODRIGUEZ v. STATE OF FLORIDA
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2018 · confidence medium
Appellate Analysis “A writ of prohibition is an appropriate remedy ‘where an accused has been denied his right to a speedy trial and his motion for discharge has been denied.’” Dempsey v. State, 82 So. 3d 928, 929 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (quoting Sherrod v. Franza, 427 So. 2d 161, 163 (Fla. 1983)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Frederick Smart v. State of Florida
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
“A writ of prohibition is an appropriate remedy ‘where an accused has been denied his right to a speedy trial and his motion for discharge has been denied.’” Dempsey v. State, 82 So.3d 928, 929 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (quoting Sherrod v. Franza, 427 So.2d 161, 163 (Fla.1983)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Reid v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2013 · confidence medium
Prohibition is the appropriate remedy when a criminal defendant has been denied his right to a speedy trial due to wrongful denial of a motion for discharge filed under Rule 3.191, Dempsey v. State, 82 So.3d 928, 929 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
SCHICKEDANZ BROS.-RIVIERA LTD., a Florida Limited Partnership, Schickedanz Bros.-Palm Beach, Ltd., a Florida Limited Partnership, Schickedanz Enterprises, Inc., the corporate general partner of Schickedanz Bros.-Riviera Ltd., and Schickedanz Bros.-Palm Beach, Ltd.
v.
Robert HARRIS and Real Estate Marketing And Consulting, Inc., a Florida corporation
No. 4D10-457.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Jul 13, 2011.
82 So. 3d 928
Jane Kreusler-Walsh and Barbara J. Compiani of Kreusler-Walsh, Compiani & Vargas, P.A., West Palm Beach, and Rodney L. Tennyson of Rodney L. Tennyson, P.A., Lantana, for appellants., Michael J. Ryan, North Palm Beach, for appellees.
Gross, Stevenson, Taylor.
Published
PER CURIAM.

We affirm, in part, the second amended final judgment post mandate on rehearing. We reverse that portion of the final judgment failing to award appellant prejudgment interest. We remand to the circuit court to enter an award of prejudgment interest from the date that appellant filed its counterclaim. See Ganot Corp. v. J.M.G. Constr. Corp., 560 So.2d 804, 804-05 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). The trial court did not err in awarding prejudgment interest to appellee. See Westgate Miami Beach, Ltd. v. Newport Operating Corp., 55 So.3d 567, 575 (Fla.2010).

STEVENSON, GROSS and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.