simple inquiry in Florida

2023The trial court also awarded some prejudgment interest for the late payment of the arbitral award, but correctly denied Hawks Nest’s request for prejudgment interest from the date of loss. 2 As explained, Lugassy stands for a simple principle—denial of a claim that is eventually found to be covered is tantamount to breach of the contractual obligation to cover a loss and therefore triggers payment of prejudgment interest from the time of loss. 593 So. 2d at 571–72.

2023Westchester timely paid the appraisal award, and its actions were not tantamount to a denial of coverage. 2 The trial court correctly denied Hawks Nest’s request for prejudgment interest. 2 As explained, Lugassy stands for a simple principle—denial of a claim that is eventually found to be covered is tantamount to breach of the contractual obligation to cover a loss and therefore triggers payment of prejudgment interest from the time of loss. 593 So. 2d at 571–72.

1998As indicated in Locklear v. Sampson, 478 So.2d 1113 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), the proceeding should not be viewed "as if it were no more than a simple claim between private parties to enforce a monetary obligation." It is the child, who was not a party to the discovery violation, for whom the support is intended.

1986As indicated in Locklear v. Sampson, 478 So.2d 1113 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), the proceeding should not be viewed "as if it were no more than a simple claim between private parties to enforce a monetary obligation." It is the child, who was not a party to the discovery violation, for whom the support is intended.

2017Finally, we reject Richman's assertion that in reversing the final judgment at issue here we would need to overrule our decision in City National Bank of Florida v. City of Tampa, 67 So. 3d 293 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011).

2011Id. at 237 .

2006For example, the analysis in Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 , 83 S.Ct. 407 , 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963), provides a simple framework to make that determination.

2006For example, the analysis in Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 , 83 S.Ct. 407 , 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963), provides a simple framework to make that determination.

2000Co. v. Butler, 314 So.2d 567 (Fla.1975), therefore, structure coverage must be regarded as severable from a *491 contents claim so that the fraud may be attributed only to the latter.

1994Likewise, authorizing a prosecutor or defense lawyer to ask the more detailed question concerning whether the felony convictions involved dishonesty or false statement could create an inference that the crime was one such as perjury, requiring a defendant or witness to explain the nature of the crimes to dispel any contrary inference. [2] This is especially true in light of the broad interpretation our supreme court has given to the terms "dishonesty or false statement." Page . [3] Defendant cites Cummings v. State, 412 So.2d 436 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), as authority for his argument that he shoul

1990This simple principle was laid out clearly by the Supreme Court of Florida in Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Florida, Inc. v. Matthews, 498 So.2d 421 (Fla.1986), wherein it said: The direct purpose and effect of the statute is to prevent double recovery by plaintiffs of collateral source payments in personal injury suits arising from motor vehicle accidents.

1989A payment not thus made does not reach the debt. 39 Fla.Jur.2d Payment and Tender § 18, at 92 (1982); see Carberry v. Foley, 213 So.2d 873 (Fla. 1968); Waits v. Orange Creek Turpentine Corp., 123 Fla. 31 , 166 So. 449 (1936); Hendry v. Benlisa, 37 Fla. 609 , 20 *1031 So. 800 (1896).

1989A payment not thus made does not reach the debt. 39 Fla.Jur.2d Payment and Tender § 18, at 92 (1982); see Carberry v. Foley, 213 So.2d 873 (Fla. 1968); Waits v. Orange Creek Turpentine Corp., 123 Fla. 31 , 166 So. 449 (1936); Hendry v. Benlisa, 37 Fla. 609 , 20 *1031 So. 800 (1896).

1989A payment not thus made does not reach the debt. 39 Fla.Jur.2d Payment and Tender § 18, at 92 (1982); see Carberry v. Foley, 213 So.2d 873 (Fla. 1968); Waits v. Orange Creek Turpentine Corp., 123 Fla. 31 , 166 So. 449 (1936); Hendry v. Benlisa, 37 Fla. 609 , 20 *1031 So. 800 (1896).

1985Cited in M.M. is People v. Turner, 121 Cal. App.2d Supp. 861, 263 P.2d 685 (1953), where the California legislature's approval of private schooling, on the one hand, and instruction by a private tutor, on the other, as alternatives to public schooling clearly showed that at-home schooling may not be conducted without a private tutor. "[A] mere reading of [the relevant California statute] clearly indicates that the legislature intended to distinguish between private schools, upon the one hand, and home instruction by a private tutor or other person, on the other.

1971These cases are Boulden v. Holman, 394 U.S. 478 , 89 S.Ct. 1138 , 22 L.Ed.2d 433 (1969), and Maxwell v. Bishop, 398 U.S. 262 , 90 S.Ct. 1578 , 26 L.Ed.2d 221 (1970).

1971These cases are Boulden v. Holman, 394 U.S. 478 , 89 S.Ct. 1138 , 22 L.Ed.2d 433 (1969), and Maxwell v. Bishop, 398 U.S. 262 , 90 S.Ct. 1578 , 26 L.Ed.2d 221 (1970).

1971These cases are Boulden v. Holman, 394 U.S. 478 , 89 S.Ct. 1138 , 22 L.Ed.2d 433 (1969), and Maxwell v. Bishop, 398 U.S. 262 , 90 S.Ct. 1578 , 26 L.Ed.2d 221 (1970).

1971These cases are Boulden v. Holman, 394 U.S. 478 , 89 S.Ct. 1138 , 22 L.Ed.2d 433 (1969), and Maxwell v. Bishop, 398 U.S. 262 , 90 S.Ct. 1578 , 26 L.Ed.2d 221 (1970).

1962In a well reasoned opinion prepared for this Court by Mr. Justice Drew in the case of Zirin v. Charles Pfizer & Co., Fla. 1961, 128 So.2d 594, 596 , we said: "[2-4] The second contention that we are limited in our review to the `question' is seen to be without merit by a simple analysis of the constitutional provision itself.

1957Law Dict., Rawle's Third Revision, p. 2396, which defines the word as "`Something which is offensive to chastity; that which is offensive to chastity and modesty'." In Hallmark Productions, Inc., v. Mosley, supra, 190 F.2d at page 910 , the court said: "* * * one of the tests often *881 used is whether it shocks the ordinary and common sense of men as an indecency. * * *" Measured by the above definitions we are convinced that it cannot be said as a matter of law that the article is not obscene.