declined rule in Florida

2006See Nissim Hadjes, Inc. v. Hasner, 408 So.2d 819 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Buckley Towers Condo., Inc. v. Buchwald, 374 So.2d 550 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979).

2006See Nissim Hadjes, Inc. v. Hasner, 408 So.2d 819 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Buckley Towers Condo., Inc. v. Buchwald, 374 So.2d 550 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979).

2012In Washington v. State,-So.3d-(Fla. 2d DCA 2012), the court declined to rule out a life sentence for a nonhomicide offense imposed simultaneously with a life sentence for an accompanying homicide, saying of Graham : We are not required to reverse these sentences under the Supreme Court’s holding in Graham v. Florida, - U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 2011 , 176 L.Ed.2d 825 (2010).

2012In Washington v. State,-So.3d-(Fla. 2d DCA 2012), the court declined to rule out a life sentence for a nonhomicide offense imposed simultaneously with a life sentence for an accompanying homicide, saying of Graham : We are not required to reverse these sentences under the Supreme Court’s holding in Graham v. Florida, - U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 2011 , 176 L.Ed.2d 825 (2010).

2010Id. at 1325. ' *720 Several years later, in Suntrust Bank v. Riverside National Bank of Florida, 792 So.2d 1222 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), an en banc decision, the Fourth District issued an opinion on the matter of equitable sub-rogation in the mortgage context.

1997Further, although Garone v. Parks, 668 So.2d 307 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), provided authority for it to proceed to conclusion, the trial court declined to rule upon the merits, opting for a final hearing.

1990The state argues that, in any event, when it was clear that the defense sought to attack Harmon's in-court testimony with his prior inconsistent statements, the State was entitled to "anticipatorily rehabilitate" Harmon using the prior consistent photo identification, citing Bell v. State, 491 So.2d 537 (Fla. 1986).

1982We deem this to be error and hold that the trial court should and must rule upon the constitutionality questions prior to the election upon the authority of and for the reasons stated in Rivergate Restaurant Corporation v. Metropolitan Dade County, 369 So.2d 679 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); City of Miami v. Smith, 251 So.2d 290 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971); Dade County v. Dade County League of Municipalities, 104 So.2d 512 (Fla.1958); and Duval County v. Jennings, 121 Fla. 584 , 164 So. 356 (1935).

1982We deem this to be error and hold that the trial court should and must rule upon the constitutionality questions prior to the election upon the authority of and for the reasons stated in Rivergate Restaurant Corporation v. Metropolitan Dade County, 369 So.2d 679 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); City of Miami v. Smith, 251 So.2d 290 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971); Dade County v. Dade County League of Municipalities, 104 So.2d 512 (Fla.1958); and Duval County v. Jennings, 121 Fla. 584 , 164 So. 356 (1935).

1982The substance of the ordinance was before the Supreme Court in City of Miami v. Kayfetz, 92 So.2d 798 (Fla.1957), and even though the court declined to rule on the facial invalidity we believe that the ordinance in question adequately apprises an employee of an alcoholic beverage establishment 3 of the proscribed conduct, i.e., the employee is not to mingle or fraternize with patrons.

1982We deem this to be error and hold that the trial court should and must rule upon the constitutionality questions prior to the election upon the authority of and for the reasons stated in Rivergate Restaurant Corporation v. Metropolitan Dade County, 369 So.2d 679 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); City of Miami v. Smith, 251 So.2d 290 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971); Dade County v. Dade County League of Municipalities, 104 So.2d 512 (Fla.1958); and Duval County v. Jennings, 121 Fla. 584 , 164 So. 356 (1935).

1982We deem this to be error and hold that the trial court should and must rule upon the constitutionality questions prior to the election upon the authority of and for the reasons stated in Rivergate Restaurant Corporation v. Metropolitan Dade County, 369 So.2d 679 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); City of Miami v. Smith, 251 So.2d 290 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971); Dade County v. Dade County League of Municipalities, 104 So.2d 512 (Fla.1958); and Duval County v. Jennings, 121 Fla. 584 , 164 So. 356 (1935).

1982We deem this to be error and hold that the trial court should and must rule upon the constitutionality questions prior to the election upon the authority of and for the reasons stated in Rivergate Restaurant Corporation v. Metropolitan Dade County, 369 So.2d 679 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); City of Miami v. Smith, 251 So.2d 290 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971); Dade County v. Dade County League of Municipalities, 104 So.2d 512 (Fla.1958); and Duval County v. Jennings, 121 Fla. 584 , 164 So. 356 (1935).

1974Appellee contends that the court was correct in refusing to declare whether the regulation was valid inasmuch as the evidence proved that appellant had failed to meet the standards it agreed were applicable; and, therefore, the court was precluded from passing upon the constitutionality or validity of the regulation as held in City of Cape Canaveral v. Chesnick, 227 So.2d 502 (Fla.App. 1969).