future hearing in Florida

2002See also Tenny v. Tenny, 147 Fla. 672 , 3 So.2d 375 (1941)(trial courts are open at all times to hear matters concerning children, and for the purpose of "making and entering orders and decrees affecting or preserving the welfare of children”). .As we have already maintained, the issue before us involves J.C.’s temporary placement pending a future hearing, where J.C.’s permanent placement will be determined.

2002See also Tenny v. Tenny, 147 Fla. 672 , 3 So.2d 375 (1941)(trial courts are open at all times to hear matters concerning children, and for the purpose of "making and entering orders and decrees affecting or preserving the welfare of children”). .As we have already maintained, the issue before us involves J.C.’s temporary placement pending a future hearing, where J.C.’s permanent placement will be determined.

2023“The dismissal with prejudice of a prematurely filed claim does not bar a subsequent action once the claim has ripened.” Shuck v. Bank of Am., N.A., 862 So. 2d 20, 24 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003).

2018However, this Court lacks jurisdiction to review that portion of Vartumyan's appeal contained in paragraph 7 of the supplemental final judgment in which the trial court orders that "[c]hild support shall be set in accordance with the Guidelines" and "reserves jurisdiction to determine the amount, the retroactive period, if any, and the life insurance to secure support." See Garcia v. Valladares , 99 So.3d 518 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (dismissing appeal for lack of jurisdiction where order appealed determined entitlement to costs and attorney's fees but reserved jurisdiction to determine the amount a

2016We, therefore, dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.” (citations omitted)); Avis Rent A Car Sys., Inc. v. Newman, 641 So.2d 915, 915-16 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (“The instant order merely determined the entitlement to attorney’s fees without setting the amount.

2015Id. at 786-87 (footnote omitted).

2013Holland v. State, 882 So.2d 510, 511 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (citing Stephens, 630 So.2d at 1091 ).

2013See Port Everglades Auth. v. Int’l Longshoremen’s Ass’n, Local 1922-1, 652 So.2d 1169, 1173 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (“[W]hile a court cannot issue a blanket order enjoining any violation of the Sunshine Law on a showing that it was violated in particular respects, a court may enjoin a future violation that bears some resemblance to the past violation.

2008Moore v. Moore, 198 Pa.Super. 349 , 181 A.2d 714, 715 (1962); see Seitz, 471 So.2d at 614 (citing Moore with approval); Sheridan v. Sheridan, 247 N.J.Super. 552 , 589 A.2d 1067 (1990) (holding that court should not equitably distribute marital property acquired with illicitly obtained funds).

2008Moore v. Moore, 198 Pa.Super. 349 , 181 A.2d 714, 715 (1962); see Seitz, 471 So.2d at 614 (citing Moore with approval); Sheridan v. Sheridan, 247 N.J.Super. 552 , 589 A.2d 1067 (1990) (holding that court should not equitably distribute marital property acquired with illicitly obtained funds).

2008Moore v. Moore, 198 Pa.Super. 349 , 181 A.2d 714, 715 (1962); see Seitz, 471 So.2d at 614 (citing Moore with approval); Sheridan v. Sheridan, 247 N.J.Super. 552 , 589 A.2d 1067 (1990) (holding that court should not equitably distribute marital property acquired with illicitly obtained funds).

2006See id.

2004See Blaxton, 868 So.2d at 621 ("We are inclined to believe that the legislature intended to permit the court to impose any sentence `that it might have originally imposed.' Indeed, a judge may be hesitant to recommend boot camp in an effort to rehabilitate a youth if the judge realizes that the youth's sentence upon a future violation of probation will be limited to such a short term of incarceration.").

1996See Agency for Health Care Admin. v. Associated Indus. of Fla., 678 So.2d 1239 (Fla. 1996); Martinez v. Scanlan, 582 So.2d 1167, 1176 (Fla.1991).

1996See Agency for Health Care Admin. v. Associated Indus. of Fla., 678 So.2d 1239 (Fla. 1996); Martinez v. Scanlan, 582 So.2d 1167, 1176 (Fla.1991).

1982See, State v. Thompson, 413 So.2d 757 (Fla. 1982); compare, Cohen v. Katsaris, 530 F. Supp. 1092 (N.D.Fla. 1982) (expanded judicial interpretation may not be applied to previous conduct which was not violative of terms of statute). [9] Knox invokes the familiar hobgoblins in support of both his overbreadth and vagueness claims that the statute has a "chilling" effect and acts as a "sword of Damocles" over those who may fear to exercise their first amendment rights because of the brooding omnipresence of the statute.

1982See, State v. Thompson, 413 So.2d 757 (Fla. 1982); compare, Cohen v. Katsaris, 530 F. Supp. 1092 (N.D.Fla. 1982) (expanded judicial interpretation may not be applied to previous conduct which was not violative of terms of statute). [9] Knox invokes the familiar hobgoblins in support of both his overbreadth and vagueness claims that the statute has a "chilling" effect and acts as a "sword of Damocles" over those who may fear to exercise their first amendment rights because of the brooding omnipresence of the statute.