workable test in Florida

1976Accordingly, where it is found that the articles would not. have produced a . different effect, as the common mind would naturally understand them, than that which they produced with the alleged false parts included, the articles, though not a model of objective journalism, will not be deemed libelous per se, citing McCormick v. Miami Herald Publishing Co. (Fla. DCA-1962) 139 So.2d 197 , and Hammond v. Times Publishing Co. (Fla. DCA, 1964) 162 So.2d 681 .

1974In McCormick v. Miami Herald Publishing Company, 139 So.2d 197 (Fla.App.2, 1962), the court stated that a workable test is whether the libel as published would have a different effect on the mind of the reader from that which the pleaded truth would have produced.

2005He suggested that the more workable rule is that used by the federal courts and elsewhere, that "the evidence independent of defendant's statements need not prove the corpus delicti as long as the government introduces substantial independent evidence which would tend to establish the trustworthiness of the defendant's statements." Id.

2005THE TRUSTWORTHINESS DOCTRINE In Opper v. United States, 348 U.S. 84 , 75 S.Ct. 158 , 99 L.Ed. 101 (1954), the United States Supreme Court rejected the traditional corpus delicti rule for the trustworthiness doctrine.

2005THE TRUSTWORTHINESS DOCTRINE In Opper v. United States, 348 U.S. 84 , 75 S.Ct. 158 , 99 L.Ed. 101 (1954), the United States Supreme Court rejected the traditional corpus delicti rule for the trustworthiness doctrine.

2004I of the State Constitution, and WHEREAS, laws which are "neutral" toward religion may burden the free exercise of religion as surely as laws intended to interfere with the free exercise of religion, and WHEREAS, governments should not substantially burden the free exercise of religion without compelling justification, and WHEREAS, the compelling interest test as set forth in certain federal court rulings is a workable test for striking sensible balances between religious liberty and competing prior governmental interests, and WHEREAS, it is the intent of the Legislature of the State of Florid

2004I of the State Constitution, and WHEREAS, laws which are "neutral" toward religion may burden the free exercise of religion as surely as laws intended to interfere with the free exercise of religion, and WHEREAS, governments should not substantially burden the free exercise of religion without compelling justification, and WHEREAS, the compelling interest test as set forth in certain federal court rulings is a workable test for striking sensible balances between religious liberty and competing prior governmental interests, and WHEREAS, it is the intent of the Legislature of the State of Florid

2004I of the State Constitution, and WHEREAS, laws which are "neutral" toward religion may burden the free exercise of religion as surely as laws intended to interfere with the free exercise of religion, and WHEREAS, governments should not substantially burden the free exercise of religion without compelling justification, and WHEREAS, the compelling interest test as set forth in certain federal court rulings is a workable test for striking sensible balances between religious liberty and competing prior governmental interests, and WHEREAS, it is the intent of the Legislature of the State of Florid

2004I of the State Constitution, and WHEREAS, laws which are "neutral" toward religion may burden the free exercise of religion as surely as laws intended to interfere with the free exercise of religion, and WHEREAS, governments should not substantially burden the free exercise of religion without compelling justification, and WHEREAS, the compelling interest test as set forth in certain federal court rulings is a workable test for striking sensible balances between religious liberty and competing prior governmental interests, and WHEREAS, it is the intent of the Legislature of the State of Florid

2004This framework is consistent with the purpose of NICA to provide a limited system of compensation irrespective of fault for those infants which suffer birth-related neurological injuries. § 766.301, Fla. Stat. [1] As Judge Altenbernd noted in Fluet : The purpose of the statutory plan is to limit a participating physician's exposure to civil liability in cases where the doctor's professional involvement could make him or her a defendant in a lawsuit. 788 So.2d at 1012 .

1982The Florida court then proceeded to adopt a test to guide trial courts in determining what news stories were entitled to the protection of the actual malice standard, announcing the test in Florida to be as follows: [W]e think that as a workable test the question is whether there is a logical relationship between the reported activities of the prominent person or between the subject matter of the conduct, occasion or event reported or recorded, and the real concern of the public. 271 So.2d at 751 .

1982This question, the Court states, is a question of law for, '‘[t]hus a publisher need not gamble on whether a given jury may reject as unreasonable his decision that a proposed publication involves a matter of public or general concern.” 271 So.2d at 751 .

1981Accordingly, we hold that when a policeman had made a lawful custodial arrest of the occupant of an automobile, he may, as a contemporaneous incident of that arrest, search the passenger compartment of that automobile. 101 S.Ct. at 2864 .

1970The test to be used in determining the effect of inaccuracies has recently been pointed out by the Second District Court of Appeal of Florida in the case of Hill v. Lakeland Ledger Publishing Corporation, Fla.App. 1970, 231 So.2d 254 [opinion filed January 30, 1970], wherein the following is found: * * * * * * "We conclude, therefore, that this case is controlled by our holding in McCormick v. Miami Herald Publishing Co. We there stated: "`[4] A workable test is whether the libel as published would have a different effect on the mind of the reader from that which the pleaded truth would have p