fact-intensive inquiry in Florida

2012In re Apportionment-2002, 817 So.2d at 831 .

2002The present proceeding before this Court is not the proper forum to address such a fact-intensive claim." [c.o.] 817 So.2d at 831 .

2007Schmitt v. State, 590 So.2d 404 (Fla.1991).

1992Schmitt v. State of Florida, 590 So.2d 404 (Fla. 1991).

2024Whether a homestead has been abandoned is determined on a case-by-case basis and “is necessarily a fact- intensive inquiry.” Yost-Rudge v. A to Z Props., Inc., 263 So. 3d 95 , 97–98 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) (citing Beensen v. Burgess, 218 So. 2d 517, 519 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)). “[A] finding of abandonment requires a ‘strong showing’ of intent not to return to the homestead.” Id. at 97 (citing In re Herr, 197 B.R. 939, 941 (Bankr.

2018In Flotilla, the Second District explained that there was no physical taking in the case before it and that it was more truly characterized by the fact-intensive inquiry the law associates with regulatory takings rather than physical takings. 636 So. 2d at 764 .

2018The Second District, citing Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419 (1982), noted that the government physically occupies property when it permanently deprives the owner of his bundle of private property rights.

2015In Apportionment I, 83 So.3d at 634 , this Court looked to objective measures and tier-two requirements — such as the existence of “bizarre shape[s]” and “appendages” — in an effort to discern whether the map was drawn with improper intent.

2015In Apportionment I, 83 So. 3d at 634 , this Court looked to objective measures and tier-two requirements—such as the existence of “bizarre shape[s]” and “appendages”—in an effort to discern whether the map was drawn with improper intent.

2015Unlike the fact-intensive challenge here, in which the parties had an opportunity to present extensive evidence during an adversarial trial pertaining to whether the plan and individual districts were drawn with improper intent, this Court’s review in Apportionment I was “a facial review based on objective, undisputed evidence in the limited record before the Court.” Apportionment III, 118 So.3d at 200 .

2015Unlike the fact-intensive challenge here, in which the parties had an opportunity to present extensive evidence during an adversarial trial pertaining to whether the plan and individual districts were drawn with improper intent, this Court’s review in Apportionment I was “a facial review based on objective, undisputed evidence in the limited record before the Court.” Apportionment III, 118 So. 3d at 200 .

2011When considering the issue of economic impact, the court must conduct “a fact-intensive inquiry of the impact of the regulation on the economic viability of the landowner’s property by analyzing permissible uses before and after the enactment of the regulation.” Taylor v. Vill. of N. Palm Beach, 659 So.2d 1167 , 1171 n. 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995).

2008Such a recognition also furthers society's "deep-rooted feeling that the police must obey the law while enforcing the law; that in the end life and liberty can be as much endangered from illegal methods used to convict those thought to be criminals as from the actual criminals themselves." Spano, 360 U.S. at 320-21 , 79 S.Ct. 1202 .

2008Such a recognition also furthers society's "deep-rooted feeling that the police must obey the law while enforcing the law; that in the end life and liberty can be as much endangered from illegal methods used to convict those thought to be criminals as from the actual criminals themselves." Spano, 360 U.S. at 320-21 , 79 S.Ct. 1202 .

2006Lifecare, 68 F.3d at 435 .

2006As stated by the United States Supreme Court in Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 , 111 S.Ct. 2382 , 115 L.Ed.2d 389 (1991): We adhere to the rule that, in order to determine whether a particular encounter constitutes a seizure, a court must consider all the circumstances surrounding the encounter to determine whether the police conduct would have communicated to a reasonable person that the person was not free to decline the officers' requests or otherwise terminate the encounter.

2006As stated by the United States Supreme Court in Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 , 111 S.Ct. 2382 , 115 L.Ed.2d 389 (1991): We adhere to the rule that, in order to determine whether a particular encounter constitutes a seizure, a court must consider all the circumstances surrounding the encounter to determine whether the police conduct would have communicated to a reasonable person that the person was not free to decline the officers' requests or otherwise terminate the encounter.

2002Further, as pointed out by this Court in Heuring, 513 So.2d at 123-24 , where the evidence is being offered to prove absence of mistake or accident, the fact-intensive inquiry must include an analysis of the crime's remoteness as well as the absence of any intervening similar acts.