restated principle in Florida

2015This Court restated these factors in Century Surety Co. v. de Moraes, 998 So.2d 662 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009), as follows: (1) whether the two actions are mutually exclusive; (2) whether proceeding to a decision on the indemnity issue will promote settlement and avoid the problem of collusive actions between the claimant and the insured in order to create coverage where there is none; and (3) whether the insured has resources independent of insurance, so that it would be immaterial to the claimant whether the insured’s conduct was covered or not covered by the indemnity insurance.

2015This Court restated these factors in Century Surety Co. v. de Moraes, 998 So. 2d 662 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009), as follows: (1) whether the two actions are mutually exclusive; (2) whether proceeding to a decision on the indemnity issue will promote settlement and avoid the problem of collusive actions between the claimant and the insured in order to create coverage where there is none; and (3) whether the insured has resources independent of insurance, so that it would be immaterial to the claimant whether the insured’s conduct was covered or not covered by the indemnity insurance.

1978Recently, in State v. Sobel, 363 So.2d 324 (Fla. 1978), the court restated the test for determining whether a variance between the accusatory document and proof at trial is material and mandates dismissal or acquittal: In deciding whether or not the variance is fatal, we must determine whether the information is "so vague, indistinct and indefinite as to mislead the accused and embarrass him in the preparation of his defense or expose him after conviction or acquittal to substantial danger of a new prosecution for the same offense." (363 So.2d p. 328).

1978Recently, in State v. Sobel, 363 So.2d 324 (Fla.1978), the court restated the test for determining whether a variance between the accusatory document and proof at trial is material and mandates dismissal or acquittal: In deciding whether or not the variance is fatal, we must determine whether the information is “so vague, indistinct and indefinite as to mislead the accused and embarrass him in the preparation of his defense or expose him after conviction or acquittal to substantial danger of a new prosecution for the same offense.” (363 So.2d p. 328).

2007Provident, 718 So.2d at 739 .

2000The court restated this principle in Livingston v. State, 441 So.2d 1083 (Fla.1983), and emphasized the point with the categorical warning that "a lawyer's request for a general disqualification will not be granted." Id. at 1085 .

2000The court restated this principle in Livingston v. State, 441 So.2d 1083 (Fla.1983), and emphasized the point with the categorical warning that "a lawyer's request for a general disqualification will not be granted." Id. at 1085 .

1999See Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371 , 91 S.Ct. 780 , 28 L.Ed.2d 113 (1971) (prepayment of fees for divorce); Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 , 107 S.Ct. 2254 , 96 L.Ed.2d 64 (1987) (right of inmate to marry); Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 , 98 S.Ct. 673 , 54 L.Ed.2d 618 (1978) (right of parent to marry); Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 , 87 S.Ct. 1817 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1010 (1967) (marriage); Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel.

1999See Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371 , 91 S.Ct. 780 , 28 L.Ed.2d 113 (1971) (prepayment of fees for divorce); Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 , 107 S.Ct. 2254 , 96 L.Ed.2d 64 (1987) (right of inmate to marry); Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 , 98 S.Ct. 673 , 54 L.Ed.2d 618 (1978) (right of parent to marry); Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 , 87 S.Ct. 1817 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1010 (1967) (marriage); Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel.

1999The Court restated the principle that "[c]hoices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as `of basic importance in our society,' rights sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State's unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect." 519 U.S. at 116 , 117 S.Ct. 555 .

1999The Court restated the principle that "[c]hoices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as `of basic importance in our society,' rights sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State's unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect." 519 U.S. at 116 , 117 S.Ct. 555 .

1999The court restated the rule in Hialeah Race Course, Inc. v. Gulfstream Park Racing Association, 245 So.2d 625 (Fla. 1971), and added that a statutory criterion is not valid merely because it appears to promote the objective of the law.

1999See Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371 , 91 S.Ct. 780 , 28 L.Ed.2d 113 (1971) (prepayment of fees for divorce); Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 , 107 S.Ct. 2254 , 96 L.Ed.2d 64 (1987) (right of inmate to marry); Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 , 98 S.Ct. 673 , 54 L.Ed.2d 618 (1978) (right of parent to marry); Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 , 87 S.Ct. 1817 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1010 (1967) (marriage); Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel.

1999See Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371 , 91 S.Ct. 780 , 28 L.Ed.2d 113 (1971) (prepayment of fees for divorce); Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 , 107 S.Ct. 2254 , 96 L.Ed.2d 64 (1987) (right of inmate to marry); Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 , 98 S.Ct. 673 , 54 L.Ed.2d 618 (1978) (right of parent to marry); Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 , 87 S.Ct. 1817 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1010 (1967) (marriage); Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel.

1999See Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371 , 91 S.Ct. 780 , 28 L.Ed.2d 113 (1971) (prepayment of fees for divorce); Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 , 107 S.Ct. 2254 , 96 L.Ed.2d 64 (1987) (right of inmate to marry); Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 , 98 S.Ct. 673 , 54 L.Ed.2d 618 (1978) (right of parent to marry); Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 , 87 S.Ct. 1817 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1010 (1967) (marriage); Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel.

1999See Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371 , 91 S.Ct. 780 , 28 L.Ed.2d 113 (1971) (prepayment of fees for divorce); Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 , 107 S.Ct. 2254 , 96 L.Ed.2d 64 (1987) (right of inmate to marry); Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 , 98 S.Ct. 673 , 54 L.Ed.2d 618 (1978) (right of parent to marry); Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 , 87 S.Ct. 1817 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1010 (1967) (marriage); Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel.

1991In Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Morley, 570 So.2d 402 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990), this court restated the principle of law that parents may not contract away their children's rights to support.

1977In Herzog v. Herzog, 346 So.2d 56 (Fla. 1977), the court restated the test in Shaw and concluded that generally, in appellate proceedings, the trial court's findings of fact are shielded from attack and are clothed with a presumption of validity.

1964NOTES [1] This crime was committed while petitioner was on parole from his prior 15-year sentences. [2] In the Vellucci case this court restated the rule announced in Helton v. Mayo, 153 Fla. 616 , 15 So.2d 416 (1943) that, where second sentence is to "run from the expiration of the first judgment" and the first judgment is void, the second judgment is construed to run as if the quoted words had not been included.

1964NOTES [1] This crime was committed while petitioner was on parole from his prior 15-year sentences. [2] In the Vellucci case this court restated the rule announced in Helton v. Mayo, 153 Fla. 616 , 15 So.2d 416 (1943) that, where second sentence is to "run from the expiration of the first judgment" and the first judgment is void, the second judgment is construed to run as if the quoted words had not been included.