answer defense in Florida

1961On the subject of striking answers in equity, the Supreme Court of Florida in Petersohn v. Keech, Fla.1949, 39 So.2d 714, 715 , had this to say: “ * * * an answer will, avail a defendant only so far as in equity it should, and it is error to strike matter relevant and pertinent to the equities though it would affect equities only to the extent of assessments of costs, the test being not whether the answer states a defense but whether matter is relevant or material.” To the same effect see: Westervelt v. Istokpoga Consolidated Subdrainage District, 1948, 160 Fla. 535 , 35 So.2d 641 ; and Schupl

1961On the subject of striking answers in equity, the Supreme Court of Florida in Petersohn v. Keech, Fla.1949, 39 So.2d 714, 715 , had this to say: “ * * * an answer will, avail a defendant only so far as in equity it should, and it is error to strike matter relevant and pertinent to the equities though it would affect equities only to the extent of assessments of costs, the test being not whether the answer states a defense but whether matter is relevant or material.” To the same effect see: Westervelt v. Istokpoga Consolidated Subdrainage District, 1948, 160 Fla. 535 , 35 So.2d 641 ; and Schupl

1961On the subject of striking answers in equity, the Supreme Court of Florida in Petersohn v. Keech, Fla.1949, 39 So.2d 714, 715 , had this to say: “ * * * an answer will, avail a defendant only so far as in equity it should, and it is error to strike matter relevant and pertinent to the equities though it would affect equities only to the extent of assessments of costs, the test being not whether the answer states a defense but whether matter is relevant or material.” To the same effect see: Westervelt v. Istokpoga Consolidated Subdrainage District, 1948, 160 Fla. 535 , 35 So.2d 641 ; and Schupl

1961On the subject of striking answers in equity, the Supreme Court of Florida in Petersohn v. Keech, Fla.1949, 39 So.2d 714, 715 , had this to say: “ * * * an answer will, avail a defendant only so far as in equity it should, and it is error to strike matter relevant and pertinent to the equities though it would affect equities only to the extent of assessments of costs, the test being not whether the answer states a defense but whether matter is relevant or material.” To the same effect see: Westervelt v. Istokpoga Consolidated Subdrainage District, 1948, 160 Fla. 535 , 35 So.2d 641 ; and Schupl

1961On the subject of striking answers in equity, the Supreme Court of Florida in Petersohn v. Keech, Fla.1949, 39 So.2d 714, 715 , had this to say: “ * * * an answer will, avail a defendant only so far as in equity it should, and it is error to strike matter relevant and pertinent to the equities though it would affect equities only to the extent of assessments of costs, the test being not whether the answer states a defense but whether matter is relevant or material.” To the same effect see: Westervelt v. Istokpoga Consolidated Subdrainage District, 1948, 160 Fla. 535 , 35 So.2d 641 ; and Schupl

1960To the same effect see Petersohn v. Keech, Fla.1949, 39 So.2d 714 ; Griley v. Griley, Fla.1949, 43 So.2d 350 ; Wakulla Edgewater Co. v. Wilson, Fla.1949, 39 So. 2d 548 , and Schupler v. Eastern Mortgage Co., 1948, 160 Fla. 72 , 33 So.2d 586 .

1948The test is not whether the answer states a defense but whether the matter is relevant or material : “If the matter contained in an answer in an equity cause is relevant, or can have any influence in the decision of the subject matter of the controversy, it is not impertinent.”— Trustees of Internal Improvement Fund v. Root, 58 So. 371 , 63 Fla. 666 ; Jones v. Hiller, 65 Fla. 532 , 62 So. 583 ; Cummer Co. v. Yager, 75 Fla. 729 , 79 So. 272 ; Boca Grande Inv.

1947"If the matter contained in an answer in an equity cause is relevant, or can have any influence in the decision of the subject matter of the controversy, it is not impertinent." Trustees of Internal Improvement Fund v. Root, 58 So. 371 , 63 Fla. 666 ; Jones v. Hiller, 62 So. 583 , 65 Fla. 552 ; Cummer Co. v. Yager, 79 So. 272 , 75 Fla. 729 ; Boca Grande Inv.

1948The test is not whether the answer states a defense but whether the matter is relevant or material : “If the matter contained in an answer in an equity cause is relevant, or can have any influence in the decision of the subject matter of the controversy, it is not impertinent.”— Trustees of Internal Improvement Fund v. Root, 58 So. 371 , 63 Fla. 666 ; Jones v. Hiller, 65 Fla. 532 , 62 So. 583 ; Cummer Co. v. Yager, 75 Fla. 729 , 79 So. 272 ; Boca Grande Inv.

1948The test is not whether the answer states a defense but whether the matter is relevant or material : “If the matter contained in an answer in an equity cause is relevant, or can have any influence in the decision of the subject matter of the controversy, it is not impertinent.”— Trustees of Internal Improvement Fund v. Root, 58 So. 371 , 63 Fla. 666 ; Jones v. Hiller, 65 Fla. 532 , 62 So. 583 ; Cummer Co. v. Yager, 75 Fla. 729 , 79 So. 272 ; Boca Grande Inv.

1948The test is not whether the answer states a defense but whether the matter is relevant or material : “If the matter contained in an answer in an equity cause is relevant, or can have any influence in the decision of the subject matter of the controversy, it is not impertinent.”— Trustees of Internal Improvement Fund v. Root, 58 So. 371 , 63 Fla. 666 ; Jones v. Hiller, 65 Fla. 532 , 62 So. 583 ; Cummer Co. v. Yager, 75 Fla. 729 , 79 So. 272 ; Boca Grande Inv.

1948The test is not whether the answer states a defense but whether the matter is relevant or material : “If the matter contained in an answer in an equity cause is relevant, or can have any influence in the decision of the subject matter of the controversy, it is not impertinent.”— Trustees of Internal Improvement Fund v. Root, 58 So. 371 , 63 Fla. 666 ; Jones v. Hiller, 65 Fla. 532 , 62 So. 583 ; Cummer Co. v. Yager, 75 Fla. 729 , 79 So. 272 ; Boca Grande Inv.

2025The Court noted that the case was “as nearly on all fours with Apprendi and Alleyne as any we might imagine[,]”and concluded that a jury must resolve the “ACCA’s occasions inquiry unanimously and beyond a reasonable doubt.” did note that “Jackson does not directly address or even mention Apprendi error[,]” 61 So. 3d 399 , 401 n.3, but this observation is not a holding that Apprendi claims are properly raised by a rule 3.800(b) motion. 3 I agree with Judge Eisnaugle that rule 3.800(a) is an “odd fit” for Apprendi errors.

2000Irvine, 495 So.2d 167 ; Fuller, 497 So.2d 1322 .

2000Irvine, 495 So.2d 167 ; Fuller, 497 So.2d 1322 .

1999See C.D.B. v. State, 662 So.2d 738 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); O'Rourke v. State, 645 So.2d 569, 571 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994), approved, 661 So.2d 800 (Fla.1995).

1989In answer to a similar argument, the court in Quanstrom v. Standard Guaranty Insurance Company, 519 So.2d 1135 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988), held: As to the argument that the contingency risk multiplier may, in the trial court's opinion, result in an unreasonably large fee in a given case (such as when, as here, it is compared only to the amount in controversy), the answer is that the factors other than the contingency risk factor, such as the hours expended and the routinely charged fee rate, are equally implicated.

1987In Rubin v. Baker, 276 So.2d 532 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973), it was held that the trial court should not have denied the appellant's motion for reconsideration when his motion to set aside a default had been denied for failure to submit simultaneously an answer or defense, but an answer tendering proposed defenses accompanied his motion for reconsideration.

1960To the same effect see Petersohn v. Keech, Fla.1949, 39 So.2d 714 ; Griley v. Griley, Fla.1949, 43 So.2d 350 ; Wakulla Edgewater Co. v. Wilson, Fla.1949, 39 So. 2d 548 , and Schupler v. Eastern Mortgage Co., 1948, 160 Fla. 72 , 33 So.2d 586 .

1960The Florida Supreme Court said in Town of Lake Hamilton v. Hughes, 1948, 159 Fla. 600 , 32 So.2d 283 , that in equity matters relevant and material to the equities may be stated in an answer, and it is error to strike such matters even though they affect the equities only to the extent of the assessment of costs; the test -being, not whether the answer states a defense, but whether the matter is relevant or material.

1960The Florida Supreme Court said in Town of Lake Hamilton v. Hughes, 1948, 159 Fla. 600 , 32 So.2d 283 , that in equity matters relevant and material to the equities may be stated in an answer, and it is error to strike such matters even though they affect the equities only to the extent of the assessment of costs; the test -being, not whether the answer states a defense, but whether the matter is relevant or material.

1960To the same effect see Petersohn v. Keech, Fla.1949, 39 So.2d 714 ; Griley v. Griley, Fla.1949, 43 So.2d 350 ; Wakulla Edgewater Co. v. Wilson, Fla.1949, 39 So. 2d 548 , and Schupler v. Eastern Mortgage Co., 1948, 160 Fla. 72 , 33 So.2d 586 .

1958This admission, however, does not preclude the defendant from answering the bill of complaint when his motion to dismiss is denied and in his answer deny every material allegation of the bill of complaint." And in Bennett v. Senn, 1932, 106 Fla. 446 , 144 So. 840, 842 , in which a demurrer to an answer setting up a defense to a mortgage foreclosure was sustained and the defendant thereafter sought to rely on the allegations contained in the answer as a defense to the entry of a deficiency decree, this court said, in affirming the deficiency decree: "The fallacy of this argument is apparent whe

1958This admission, however, does not preclude the defendant from answering the bill of complaint when his motion to dismiss is denied and in his answer deny every material allegation of the bill of complaint." And in Bennett v. Senn, 1932, 106 Fla. 446 , 144 So. 840, 842 , in which a demurrer to an answer setting up a defense to a mortgage foreclosure was sustained and the defendant thereafter sought to rely on the allegations contained in the answer as a defense to the entry of a deficiency decree, this court said, in affirming the deficiency decree: "The fallacy of this argument is apparent whe

1956Appellant contends that North Shore Bank v. Town of Surfside, Fla., 72 So.2d 659 , precludes the City of North Miami from issuing the revenue certificates proposed here.

1954After overruling a motion by the county for decree on bill and answer, thus determining the sufficiency of the answer as a defense, Weiss v. Marcus, 160 Fla. 283 , 34 So.2d 550 , the lower court referred the cause to a master to take testimony.

1954After overruling a motion by the county for decree on bill and answer, thus determining the sufficiency of the answer as a defense, Weiss v. Marcus, 160 Fla. 283 , 34 So.2d 550 , the lower court referred the cause to a master to take testimony.

1948Co. v. Blanding, 77 Fla. 536 , 81 So. 886 .

1948Co. v. Blanding, 77 Fla. 536 , 81 So. 886 .

1935Campbell v. White, 39 Fla. 745 , 23 Sou. 555 .