permit violation in Florida

2012In Bell v. State, 930 So.2d 779 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006), the State was permitted to call a former co-defendant to testify at Bell’s trial, to the surprise and over the objection of the defendant. 3 Defense counsel sought first to exclude the co-defendant’s testimony and, when that motion was denied, sought a one-week continuance of the trial to permit the defense to depose the former co-defendant and to prepare a new defense strategy.

2008Id. at 428 (quoting Ordinance No. 05-60, § 10).

2007Upon considering substantially similar language in the Pinellas County ordinance, the Phantom of Clearwater court determined that a county may, as part of its permitting process, demand proof of the seller's ability to respond in damages. 894 So.2d at 1023 .

1995We agree with Sumter County that Turner's remedy for this claim was an action under section 163.3215, Florida Statutes (1991), Board of County Comm'rs of Brevard County v. Snyder, 627 So.2d 469 (Fla. 1993); Parker v. Leon County, 627 So.2d 476 (Fla. 1993); Board of Trustees of Internal Improvement Trust Fund v. Seminole County Bd. of County Comm'rs, 623 So.2d 593, 595-596 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993), review denied, 634 So.2d 622 (Fla. 1994), not certiorari review of the issuance of the permit.

1995We agree with Sumter County that Turner's remedy for this claim was an action under section 163.3215, Florida Statutes (1991), Board of County Comm'rs of Brevard County v. Snyder, 627 So.2d 469 (Fla. 1993); Parker v. Leon County, 627 So.2d 476 (Fla. 1993); Board of Trustees of Internal Improvement Trust Fund v. Seminole County Bd. of County Comm'rs, 623 So.2d 593, 595-596 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993), review denied, 634 So.2d 622 (Fla. 1994), not certiorari review of the issuance of the permit.

1992In Benwell v. Dean, 227 Cal. App.2d 226 , 38 Cal. Rptr. 542 (1964), the court held that whether the failure to secure a permit in violation of an ordinance was the proximate cause of a collision between a vehicle and a steel beam being transported in the street was a jury question.

1992In Benwell v. Dean, 227 Cal. App.2d 226 , 38 Cal. Rptr. 542 (1964), the court held that whether the failure to secure a permit in violation of an ordinance was the proximate cause of a collision between a vehicle and a steel beam being transported in the street was a jury question.

1990Paradyne Corp. v. State, Dept. of Transportation, 528 So.2d 921 (Fla. 1st DCA), review denied, 536 So.2d 244 (1988).

1972However, even if it should be assumed, as contended for by the appellee, that by virtue of the provision of the rule under which the court may “order otherwise” an order may be made any time during the trial to permit a challenge to the panel to be presented at a later stage of the proceedings, it would appear that the clear ly expressed purpose of the rule for such a challenge to the jury panel to be made and decided prior to trial should not be substantially disregarded by postponing the challenge beyond the earliest practicable occasion therefor at the outset or early stage of the trial and

1955In the case of Jarrell v. Orlando Transit Co., 123 Fla. 776 , 167 So. 664, 666 , this Court said: “The right to use the streets and highways of a municipality for the conduct of a strictly private business is not inherent; it can be acquired by permission or license from the city, whose power to withhold or grant it in the manner and to the extent it may see fit is an essential prerogative of municipal government.

1955In the case of Jarrell v. Orlando Transit Co., 123 Fla. 776 , 167 So. 664, 666 , this Court said: “The right to use the streets and highways of a municipality for the conduct of a strictly private business is not inherent; it can be acquired by permission or license from the city, whose power to withhold or grant it in the manner and to the extent it may see fit is an essential prerogative of municipal government.

1938J. 168; 37 C..J. 246.” See Green v. Ivey, 45 Fla. 338 , 33 Sou.