case falls within rule in Florida

2018“Murphy recognized that its rule of immunity to process does not apply when there is (1) identity of parties and (2) identity of issues.” Id. (citations omitted).

2010The doctrine applies "in the absence of a contractual provision specifying governing law[.]" Shaps, 826 So.2d at 254 n. 3.

2010The doctrine applies “in the absence of a contractual provision specifying governing Iaw[.]” Shaps, 826 So.2d at 254 n. 3.

2004Accordingly, we conclude *181 that this case falls within the exception recognized in Ormond Beach where the parties have acquired "substantial rights in the cause" and are entitled to a "disposition of the case on the merits." See Ormond Beach, 835 So.2d at 295 .

1998As to the damages to the remainder of Grandpa's property, appellant recognizes the general rule that just compensation does not include the decrease in value to the remainder, but contends this case falls within an exception to that rule found in Lee County v. Exchange National Bank, 417 So.2d 268 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982), review denied 426 So.2d 25 (Fla. 1983), "where the use of the land taken constitutes an integral and inseparable part of a single use to which the land taken and other adjoining land is put." Appellant contends that since a portion of its land was taken for the highway project, an

1996Thus, this case falls within the rule stated in Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298 , 77 S.Ct. 1064 , 1 L.Ed.2d 1356 (1957) overruled in part on other grounds, Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1 , 98 S.Ct. 2141 , 57 L.Ed.2d 1 (1978), and recently cited in Horn v. State, 677 So.2d 320 (Fla. 1st DCA) review granted Case Nos. 87,788, 87,789, 679 So.2d 774 (Fla. August 27, 1996): "We think the proper rule to be applied is that which requires a verdict to be set aside in cases where the verdict is supportable on one ground, but not on another, and it is impossible to tell which ground the jury sel

1996Thus, this case falls within the rule stated in Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298 , 77 S.Ct. 1064 , 1 L.Ed.2d 1356 (1957) overruled in part on other grounds, Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1 , 98 S.Ct. 2141 , 57 L.Ed.2d 1 (1978), and recently cited in Horn v. State, 677 So.2d 320 (Fla. 1st DCA) review granted Case Nos. 87,788, 87,789, 679 So.2d 774 (Fla. August 27, 1996): "We think the proper rule to be applied is that which requires a verdict to be set aside in cases where the verdict is supportable on one ground, but not on another, and it is impossible to tell which ground the jury sel

1996Thus, this case falls within the rule stated in Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298 , 77 S.Ct. 1064 , 1 L.Ed.2d 1356 (1957) overruled in part on other grounds, Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1 , 98 S.Ct. 2141 , 57 L.Ed.2d 1 (1978), and recently cited in Horn v. State, 677 So.2d 320 (Fla. 1st DCA) review granted Case Nos. 87,788, 87,789, 679 So.2d 774 (Fla. August 27, 1996): "We think the proper rule to be applied is that which requires a verdict to be set aside in cases where the verdict is supportable on one ground, but not on another, and it is impossible to tell which ground the jury sel

1996Thus, this case falls within the rule stated in Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298 , 77 S.Ct. 1064 , 1 L.Ed.2d 1356 (1957) overruled in part on other grounds, Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1 , 98 S.Ct. 2141 , 57 L.Ed.2d 1 (1978), and recently cited in Horn v. State, 677 So.2d 320 (Fla. 1st DCA) review granted Case Nos. 87,788, 87,789, 679 So.2d 774 (Fla. August 27, 1996): "We think the proper rule to be applied is that which requires a verdict to be set aside in cases where the verdict is supportable on one ground, but not on another, and it is impossible to tell which ground the jury sel

1990"Sufficient information must be presented to the magistrate to allow that official to determine probable cause; his action cannot be a mere ratification of the bare conclusions of others," Illinois v. Gates, 103 S.Ct. at 2333 . [7] It is well established that at a motion to suppress hearing, once the defendant has initially shown a warrantless search and seizure of his person, house or belongings, the burden shifts to the state to establish that the case falls within an exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement.

1980However, we find this case falls within the exception to this rule delineated in Pickard, supra, where the court quoted from Baron and Holtzoff, Federal Practice and Procedure, Vol. 2, § 1081: ...

1980Based on these facts, the trial court correctly determined that this case falls within the rule of State v. Andrews, supra, that a federal arrest on federal charges cannot act to commence the Florida speedy trial time period.

1979We believe that this case falls within the principle announced in Heredia v. Allstate Insurance Company, 358 So.2d 1353 (Fla. 1978), when our supreme court said: In matters requiring statutory construction, courts always seek to effectuate legislative intent.

1978As to the privilege, our sister court of the Third District in Critchlow v. Critchlow, 347 So.2d 453 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1977), considering a case factually similar to that sub judice, said: "In addition, this case falls within the exception to the privileged communication between a psychiatrist and his (or her) patient as set out in Section 90.242(3)(b), Florida Statutes (1975): "90.242 Psychiatrists as witnesses; nondisclosure of communications with patient "(3) There shall be no privilege for any relevant communications under this section: * * * * * * "`(b) In a criminal or civil proceeding in wh

1974In this connection, the Florida Supreme Court in Kirksey v. Jernigan, Fla., 45 So.2d 188 , 17 A.L.R.2d 766 , stated as follows: "... we do not feel constrained to extend this rule to cases founded purely in tort, where the wrongful act is such as to reasonably imply malice, or where, *801 from the entire want of care of attention to duty, or great indifference to the persons, property, or rights of others, such malice will be imputed as would justify the assessment of exemplary or punitive damages." See also Korbin v. Berlin, Fla.App., 177 So.2d 551 .

1974However, this argument ignores language in the policy in the immediately preceding sentence: “ ‘Sickness’ wherever used in the policy means sickness or disease which causes disability covered by the policy commencing while the policy is in force as to the Insured.” In our view this case falls within the rule enunciated in Continental Casualty Company v. Gold, Fla.1967, 194 So.2d 272 that in determining what losses are covered by an insurance policy insuring against loss due to sickness or disease, ambiguous or uncertain provisions will be construed in favor of the insured.

1974In this connection, the Florida Supreme Court in Kirksey v. Jernigan, Fla., 45 So.2d 188 , 17 A.L.R.2d 766 , stated as follows: "... we do not feel constrained to extend this rule to cases founded purely in tort, where the wrongful act is such as to reasonably imply malice, or where, *801 from the entire want of care of attention to duty, or great indifference to the persons, property, or rights of others, such malice will be imputed as would justify the assessment of exemplary or punitive damages." See also Korbin v. Berlin, Fla.App., 177 So.2d 551 .

1974In this connection, the Florida Supreme Court in Kirksey v. Jernigan, Fla., 45 So.2d 188 , 17 A.L.R.2d 766 , stated as follows: "... we do not feel constrained to extend this rule to cases founded purely in tort, where the wrongful act is such as to reasonably imply malice, or where, *801 from the entire want of care of attention to duty, or great indifference to the persons, property, or rights of others, such malice will be imputed as would justify the assessment of exemplary or punitive damages." See also Korbin v. Berlin, Fla.App., 177 So.2d 551 .

1973Thus, we are presented in this appeal with the basic question of which is applicable to the facts in this case, the general rule or the exception thereto as pronounced in Codomo, supra. After a reading of the plaintiff's letters of March 9, 1971 and March 2, 1972 it is readily apparent that this case falls within the exception to the rule set forth in Codomo.

1969We believe the case falls within the principle laid down in Gay v. City of Orlando, Fla.App.1967, 202 So.2d 896 , cert. denied, 390 U.S. 956 , 88 S.Ct. 1052 , 19 L.Ed.2d 1149 , and Zide v. State, Fla. App. 1968, 212 So.2d 788 .

1969We believe the case falls within the principle laid down in Gay v. City of Orlando, Fla.App.1967, 202 So.2d 896 , cert. denied, 390 U.S. 956 , 88 S.Ct. 1052 , 19 L.Ed.2d 1149 , and Zide v. State, Fla. App. 1968, 212 So.2d 788 .

1969We believe the case falls within the principle laid down in Gay v. City of Orlando, Fla.App.1967, 202 So.2d 896 , cert. denied, 390 U.S. 956 , 88 S.Ct. 1052 , 19 L.Ed.2d 1149 , and Zide v. State, Fla. App. 1968, 212 So.2d 788 .

1969We believe the case falls within the principle laid down in Gay v. City of Orlando, Fla.App.1967, 202 So.2d 896 , cert. denied, 390 U.S. 956 , 88 S.Ct. 1052 , 19 L.Ed.2d 1149 , and Zide v. State, Fla. App. 1968, 212 So.2d 788 .

1960Although each party had a clear, unobstructed view, neither saw the other until the instant before the appulse, at which time appellant admits he saw the automobile." The holding of the United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, in Humphries v. Boersma, 5 Cir., 190 F.2d 843, 845 , supports the principle as announced in Yousko v. Vogt, supra. In the Humphries case, the court was called upon to determine the applicability of the doctrine of last clear chance under a set of facts closely analogous to the facts in the case at bar.