novel principle in Florida

2017Hitchcock, SC17-445, 226 So.3d at 217, 2017 WL 3431500, at *1 (“We have consistently applied our- decision in Asay V, denying the retroactive application of Hurst v. Florida as interpreted in Hurst v. State to defendants whose death sentences were final when the Supreme Court decided Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 , 122 S.Ct. 2428 , 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002).”) Because Asay has, not presented a novel claim for this Court’s consideration, we deny Asay’s petitions CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the circuit court’s denial of Asay’s third successive motion for postconvietion relief an

2017Hitchcock, SC17-445, 226 So.3d at 217, 2017 WL 3431500, at *1 (“We have consistently applied our- decision in Asay V, denying the retroactive application of Hurst v. Florida as interpreted in Hurst v. State to defendants whose death sentences were final when the Supreme Court decided Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 , 122 S.Ct. 2428 , 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002).”) Because Asay has, not presented a novel claim for this Court’s consideration, we deny Asay’s petitions CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the circuit court’s denial of Asay’s third successive motion for postconvietion relief an

2017Id The court also expressly disapproved what it characterized as the Fifth District’s substitution of “a novel test of changing corporate identity based on changes in corporate culture and mode of operation for well-established principles of commercial transactions.” Id. (citing Phillips v. Corp. Express Office Prods., Inc., 800 So.2d 618, 620 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)).

2005This overly broad application of Frye ignored that under Florida law Frye analysis is concerned with the expert's methodology and reasoning only if it is based on a novel principle or procedure and that the specific "opinion of the testifying expert need not be generally accepted." Henson, 823 So.2d at 110 .

2005This overly broad application of Frye ignored that under Florida law Frye analysis is concerned with the expert's methodology and reasoning only if it is based on a novel principle or procedure and that the specific "opinion of the testifying expert need not be generally accepted." Henson, 823 So.2d at 110 .

1988In a novel challenge, appellant does not complain about the jury selection process or the voter registration list from which prospective jurors are drawn, see, e.g., People v. Harris, 36 Cal.3d 36 , 201 Cal. Rptr. 782 , 679 P.2d 433 , cert. denied, 469 U.S. 965 , 105 S.Ct. 365 , 83 L.Ed.2d 301 (1984), but contends rather that moving the case to Bay County resulted in a systematic exclusion of blacks because only eight percent of those eligible for jury duty in Bay County were black compared to twenty-two percent in Jackson County.

1988In a novel challenge, appellant does not complain about the jury selection process or the voter registration list from which prospective jurors are drawn, see, e.g., People v. Harris, 36 Cal.3d 36 , 201 Cal. Rptr. 782 , 679 P.2d 433 , cert. denied, 469 U.S. 965 , 105 S.Ct. 365 , 83 L.Ed.2d 301 (1984), but contends rather that moving the case to Bay County resulted in a systematic exclusion of blacks because only eight percent of those eligible for jury duty in Bay County were black compared to twenty-two percent in Jackson County.

1988In a novel challenge, appellant does not complain about the jury selection process or the voter registration list from which prospective jurors are drawn, see, e.g., People v. Harris, 36 Cal.3d 36 , 201 Cal. Rptr. 782 , 679 P.2d 433 , cert. denied, 469 U.S. 965 , 105 S.Ct. 365 , 83 L.Ed.2d 301 (1984), but contends rather that moving the case to Bay County resulted in a systematic exclusion of blacks because only eight percent of those eligible for jury duty in Bay County were black compared to twenty-two percent in Jackson County.

1988In a novel challenge, appellant does not complain about the jury selection process or the voter registration list from which prospective jurors are drawn, see, e.g., People v. Harris, 36 Cal.3d 36 , 201 Cal. Rptr. 782 , 679 P.2d 433 , cert. denied, 469 U.S. 965 , 105 S.Ct. 365 , 83 L.Ed.2d 301 (1984), but contends rather that moving the case to Bay County resulted in a systematic exclusion of blacks because only eight percent of those eligible for jury duty in Bay County were black compared to twenty-two percent in Jackson County.

1988In a novel challenge, appellant does not complain about the jury selection process or the voter registration list from which prospective jurors are drawn, see, e.g., People v. Harris, 36 Cal.3d 36 , 201 Cal. Rptr. 782 , 679 P.2d 433 , cert. denied, 469 U.S. 965 , 105 S.Ct. 365 , 83 L.Ed.2d 301 (1984), but contends rather that moving the case to Bay County resulted in a systematic exclusion of blacks because only eight percent of those eligible for jury duty in Bay County were black compared to twenty-two percent in Jackson County.

1985Finally, in Pantone v. Demos, 59 Ill.

1985The court noted that "[s]ubjection to civil litigation improperly instituted or maintained through the negligence of a suitor is part of the price citizens pay for a free society... ." The court also opined that recognition of the plaintiff's novel claim would "unduly inhibit the recourse to the courts for the resolution of honest disputes." 439 N.Y.S.2d at 820 .

1985The same deference to trial court discretion is exemplified by Coppolino v. State, 223 So.2d 68, 70 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968), appeal dismissed, 234 So.2d 120 (Fla. 1969), cert. denied, 399 U.S. 927 , 90 S.Ct. 2242 , 26 L.Ed.2d 794 (1970), decided before the adoption of the Evidence Code, in which the appellate court affirmed the admission into evidence of a novel test, specifically designed for that case, for the purpose of showing the presence of succinylcholine chloride in the body of the deceased.

1985The same deference to trial court discretion is exemplified by Coppolino v. State, 223 So.2d 68, 70 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968), appeal dismissed, 234 So.2d 120 (Fla. 1969), cert. denied, 399 U.S. 927 , 90 S.Ct. 2242 , 26 L.Ed.2d 794 (1970), decided before the adoption of the Evidence Code, in which the appellate court affirmed the admission into evidence of a novel test, specifically designed for that case, for the purpose of showing the presence of succinylcholine chloride in the body of the deceased.

1985The same deference to trial court discretion is exemplified by Coppolino v. State, 223 So.2d 68, 70 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968), appeal dismissed, 234 So.2d 120 (Fla. 1969), cert. denied, 399 U.S. 927 , 90 S.Ct. 2242 , 26 L.Ed.2d 794 (1970), decided before the adoption of the Evidence Code, in which the appellate court affirmed the admission into evidence of a novel test, specifically designed for that case, for the purpose of showing the presence of succinylcholine chloride in the body of the deceased.

1955Bank of Gastonia, 1911, 157 N.C. 191 , 72 S.E. 996 .” As for the contention of appellant that the fund from which payment is to be made is “special” or “limited” because current school operating expenses have a claim against it paramount to debt service, it would be a novel principle indeed if we were to hold that an instrument is not negotiable, although on its face it pledges the maker’s general credit, because some obligee other than the bondholder may exert a prior claim upon the funds of the maker.

1955Bank of Gastonia, 1911, 157 N.C. 191 , 72 S.E. 996 .” As for the contention of appellant that the fund from which payment is to be made is “special” or “limited” because current school operating expenses have a claim against it paramount to debt service, it would be a novel principle indeed if we were to hold that an instrument is not negotiable, although on its face it pledges the maker’s general credit, because some obligee other than the bondholder may exert a prior claim upon the funds of the maker.