arguable defense in Florida

2009Under the circumstances, which are almost identical to those in Dingle v. State, 654 So.2d 164 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995), it is clear that, as also in Dingle , the trial court erred in denying the defendant's motion to appoint an expert neuropsychologist to examine and testify on behalf of the defendant to counter the damaging testimony of a similar expert retained by the State.

2009Under the circumstances, which are almost identical to those in Dingle v. State, 654 So.2d 164 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995), it is clear that, as also in Dingle , the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s motion to appoint an expert neuropsyehologist to examine and testify on behalf of the defendant to counter the damaging testimony of a similar expert retained by the State.

2009See § 924.33, Fla. Stat. (2009); State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla.1986).

1992Co., 438 So.2d 125 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Mission East Co. v. Wyszatycki, 362 So.2d 87 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Bay Convalescent Center, Inc. v. Carroll, 352 So.2d 900 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), cert. dismissed, 364 So.2d 881 (Fla. 1978), it is also true that the defendant contemporaneously filed a motion to dismiss which set forth, among other things, a factual basis for the defense of the statute of frauds, an arguable defense in this case.

1992Co., 438 So.2d 125 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Mission East Co. v. Wyszatycki, 362 So.2d 87 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Bay Convalescent Center, Inc. v. Carroll, 352 So.2d 900 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), cert. dismissed, 364 So.2d 881 (Fla. 1978), it is also true that the defendant contemporaneously filed a motion to dismiss which set forth, among other things, a factual basis for the defense of the statute of frauds, an arguable defense in this case.

1992Co., 438 So.2d 125 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Mission East Co. v. Wyszatycki, 362 So.2d 87 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Bay Convalescent Center, Inc. v. Carroll, 352 So.2d 900 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), cert. dismissed, 364 So.2d 881 (Fla. 1978), it is also true that the defendant contemporaneously filed a motion to dismiss which set forth, among other things, a factual basis for the defense of the statute of frauds, an arguable defense in this case.

1991Perhaps, as urged, these injuries were not causally related to the danger posed by the ultrahazardous activity in question thereby rendering the ultrahazardous activity doctrine inapplicable, see Great Lakes Dredging & Dock Co. v. Sea Gull Operating Corp., 460 So.2d 510 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), a question which we do not reach; nonetheless, we think the claim was far from frivolous and was indeed an arguable claim which posed potential liability to the County.

1989See Hasam Realty Corp. v. Dade County, 486 So.2d 9 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), review dismissed, 492 So.2d 1332 (Fla.1986); Allapattah Community Ass’n, Inc. v. City of Miami, 379 So.2d 387, 394 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), cert. denied, 386 So.2d 635 (Fla.1980); Dade County v. Inversiones Rafamar, S.A., 360 So.2d 1130 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Moviematic Indust.

1986However, the court went on to suggest that appellant’s counsel had been ineffective, that there existed an arguable error for appeal, and that appellant had been denied the opportunity of an appeal pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).

1986However, the court went on to suggest that appellant’s counsel had been ineffective, that there existed an arguable error for appeal, and that appellant had been denied the opportunity of an appeal pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).

1981The court held that if Lewis' allegations were true "this could have been a valid defense insofar as it might establish a lack of willful intent to avoid lawful confinement or at least create a reasonable doubt that there was one." Medical necessity was recognized as an arguable defense by this court in Bavero v. State, 347 So.2d 781 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).

1973This challenge rests upon State v. Silva, Fla.1972, 259 So.2d 153 , and cases therein cited.