product rule in Florida

2009See Butler v. State, 842 So.2d 817, 829 (Fla.2003) (acknowledging that Florida and other jurisdictions have accepted use of the product rule).

2004See Butler, 842 So.2d at 828 (stating that Butler's claim of invalidity of product rule "is inaccurate in light of the case law that continues to uphold the validity of the product rule").

2015See § 607.1301(4) (defining “fair value” as a value “determined ... [ujsing customary and current valuation concepts and techniques.... ”); Hausman v. Rudkin, 268 So.2d 407, 409-10 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972) (“Having found competent substantial evidence to support the. factual conclusions necessarily made by the trial court and having discerned no error as a matter of law, we must affirm the final judgment.”).

2015See § 607.1301(4) (defining “fair value” as a value “determined . . . [u]sing customary and current valuation concepts and techniques . . . .”); Hausman v. Rudkin, 268 So. 2d 407 , 409- 10 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972) (“Having found competent substantial evidence to support the factual conclusions necessarily made by the trial court and having discerned no error as a matter of law, we must affirm the final judgment.”).

2007See Debonis v. State, 745 So.2d 407 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (“[T]he defendant’s negative response during a plea colloquy to the trial court’s question of whether anything had been promised to induce his guilty plea did not conclusively refute his post-conviction relief claim that the plea was the product of defense counsel’s misrepresentations concerning the amount of sentence he would actually serve.”) (citing State v. Leroux, 689 So.2d 235 (Fla.1996)).

1999See id. at 237-38 .

2005See Hudson, 820 So.2d at 1070; Miles v. State, 694 So.2d 151 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).

2002See Hudson, 820 So.2d at 1070 ; Miles v. State, 694 So.2d 151 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).

2015See G & G Fashion Design, Inc. v. Garcia, 870 So.2d 870 ; 872 (Fla. 3d DCA 20Ó4) (affirming trial court’s valuation method because it was supported by compétent, substantial evidence).- • Further, the court’s determination’that Wood-bridge did not substantially comply with the fair value offer provisions of section ■'607.1322 also was supported by sufficient evidence that Woodbridge’s initial offer to the dissenting shareholders was not the product of an analysis using customary valuation techniques.

2007See Debonis v. State, 745 So.2d 407 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (“[T]he defendant’s negative response during a plea colloquy to the trial court’s question of whether anything had been promised to induce his guilty plea did not conclusively refute his post-conviction relief claim that the plea was the product of defense counsel’s misrepresentations concerning the amount of sentence he would actually serve.”) (citing State v. Leroux, 689 So.2d 235 (Fla.1996)).

2003See Brim v. State, 695 So.2d at 272 (observing that the NRC adopted the ceiling principle amid speculation that product rule calculations did not account for population substructures, but later disavowed the ceiling principle and renewed its approval of product rule calculations); Clark v. State, 679 So.2d 321 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) ("[P]roduct rule calculations are appropriate as a matter of scientific fact and law.") (citing National Research Council, The Evaluation of Forensic DNA Evidence (prepublication copy 1996)); see also United States v. Bonds, 12 F.3d 540 (6th Cir.1993); United States v.

2003In United States v. Bonds, 12 F.3d 540 (6th Cir.1993), the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit illustrates the product rule: To estimate the frequency of a suspect's overall DNA pattern, the individual allele frequencies are multiplied together, using a multiplication or product rule, to compute an aggregate estimate of the probability that this combination of alleles in the suspect's DNA sample would be encountered in a particular racial population.

2003See Brim v. State, 695 So.2d at 272 (observing that the NRC adopted the ceiling principle amid speculation that product rule calculations did not account for population substructures, but later disavowed the ceiling principle and renewed its approval of product rule calculations); Clark v. State, 679 So.2d 321 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) ("[P]roduct rule calculations are appropriate as a matter of scientific fact and law.") (citing National Research Council, The Evaluation of Forensic DNA Evidence (prepublication copy 1996)); see also United States v. Bonds, 12 F.3d 540 (6th Cir.1993); United States v.

2003See Brim v. State, 695 So.2d at 272 (observing that the NRC adopted the ceiling principle amid speculation that product rule calculations did not account for population substructures, but later disavowed the ceiling principle and renewed its approval of product rule calculations); Clark v. State, 679 So.2d 321 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) ("[P]roduct rule calculations are appropriate as a matter of scientific fact and law.") (citing National Research Council, The Evaluation of Forensic DNA Evidence (prepublication copy 1996)); see also United States v. Bonds, 12 F.3d 540 (6th Cir.1993); United States v.

1989See, e.g., United States v. Park, 421 U.S. 658, 673-674 , 95 S.Ct. 1903, 1912 , 44 L.Ed.2d 489, 501 (1975); United States v. General Foods Corporation, 446 F. Supp. 740 (N.D.N.Y. 1978), aff'd, 591 F.2d 1332 (2d Cir.1978); United States v. Capital City Foods, Inc., 345 F. Supp. 277 (D.N.D. 1972).

1989See, e.g., United States v. Park, 421 U.S. 658, 673-674 , 95 S.Ct. 1903, 1912 , 44 L.Ed.2d 489, 501 (1975); United States v. General Foods Corporation, 446 F. Supp. 740 (N.D.N.Y. 1978), aff'd, 591 F.2d 1332 (2d Cir.1978); United States v. Capital City Foods, Inc., 345 F. Supp. 277 (D.N.D. 1972).