case falls exception in Florida

2020Summary judgment was inappropriate because a fact question existed regarding the willfulness of the homeowner’s failure to attend the EUO The summary final judgment in this case was based on Goldman v. State Farm Fire General Insurance Co., 660 So. 2d 300, 303 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), where we held that an “insured’s refusal to comply with a demand for an examination under oath is a willful and material breach of an insurance contract which precludes the insured from recovery under the policy.” We conclude that this case falls under an exception to Goldman which we described in Haiman v. Federal I

2020Summary judgment was inappropriate because a fact question existed regarding the willfulness of the homeowner’s failure to attend the EUO The summary final judgment in this case was based on Goldman v. State Farm Fire General Insurance Co., 660 So. 2d 300, 303 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), where we held that an “insured’s refusal to comply with a demand for an examination under oath is a willful and material breach of an insurance contract which precludes the insured from recovery under the policy.” We conclude that this case falls under an exception to Goldman which we described in Haiman v. Federal I

2019As the Fourth District stated in Kelly v. Bankunited, FSB, 159 So. 3d 403, 407 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015): [I]n a situation where both Appellant and Appellee compromised in effectively agreeing to a settlement to end their litigation, we will not hold Appellee responsible for payment of Appellant's attorneys' fees, as Appellee's dismissal of the pending complaint following the settlement was the obvious and appropriate course of action.

2016See generally Messinger v. Anderson, 225 U.S. 436, 444 , 32 S.Ct. 739 , 56 L.Ed. 1152 (1912) (“[T]he phrase, ‘law of the case/ as applied to the effect of previous orders on the later action of the court rendering them in the same case, merely expresses the practice of courts generally to refuse to reopen what has been decided, not" a limit to their power.”).

2016See generally Messinger v. Anderson, 225 U.S. 436, 444 , 32 S.Ct. 739 , 56 L.Ed. 1152 (1912) (“[T]he phrase, ‘law of the case/ as applied to the effect of previous orders on the later action of the court rendering them in the same case, merely expresses the practice of courts generally to refuse to reopen what has been decided, not" a limit to their power.”).

2016Regardless, even if the law of the case doctriné applied to the issue of jurisdiction, we conclude that this case falls under an exception to the doctrine. [A]n appellate court should reconsider a point of law previously decided on a former appeal only as a matter of grace, and not as a matter of right; and ... an exception to the general rule binding the parties to “the law of the case” at the retrial and at all subsequent proceedings should not be made except in unusual circumstances and for- the most cogent reasons — and always, of course, only where “manifest injustice” will result from a

2016Regardless, even if the law of the case doctriné applied to the issue of jurisdiction, we conclude that this case falls under an exception to the doctrine. [A]n appellate court should reconsider a point of law previously decided on a former appeal only as a matter of grace, and not as a matter of right; and ... an exception to the general rule binding the parties to “the law of the case” at the retrial and at all subsequent proceedings should not be made except in unusual circumstances and for- the most cogent reasons — and always, of course, only where “manifest injustice” will result from a

2016Regardless, even if the law of the case doctriné applied to the issue of jurisdiction, we conclude that this case falls under an exception to the doctrine. [A]n appellate court should reconsider a point of law previously decided on a former appeal only as a matter of grace, and not as a matter of right; and ... an exception to the general rule binding the parties to “the law of the case” at the retrial and at all subsequent proceedings should not be made except in unusual circumstances and for- the most cogent reasons — and always, of course, only where “manifest injustice” will result from a

2012See Rios v. State, 730 So.2d 831, 832 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999).

2007NOTES [1] We find that this case falls under the rule that "an argument that the evidence is totally insufficient as a matter of law to establish the commission of a crime need not be preserved." Such complete failure of the evidence meets the requirements of fundamental error[.] F.B. v. State, 852 So.2d 226, 230-31 (Fla.2003).

2007In precluding the evidence, the trial court focused on the lack of expert testimony showing the effects of methadone on a person's ability to perceive; however, expert testimony is not necessary when the witness used drugs "at or about the time of the incident which was the subject of the witness's testimony." Hammett v. State, 908 So.2d 595, 597 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005).

2001See also Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. National Bank of Melbourne & Trust Co., 238 So.2d 665 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970).

2001Burden of Proof Roadhouse argues that Pozo failed to meet his burden of proof in moving to *1258 transfer venue because he failed to file any affidavits or present any evidence as required by Ground Improvement Techniques, Inc. v. Merchants Bonding Co., 707 So.2d 1138, 1139 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998), in which this court stated that "any defendant seeking dismissal of a suit based upon Rule 1.061 forum non conveniens must support the motion by affidavit or other evidence offered under oath." Pozo admits that he did not file any affidavits or present any evidence, but argues that this case falls under

2001Burden of Proof Roadhouse argues that Pozo failed to meet his burden of proof in moving to *1258 transfer venue because he failed to file any affidavits or present any evidence as required by Ground Improvement Techniques, Inc. v. Merchants Bonding Co., 707 So.2d 1138, 1139 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998), in which this court stated that "any defendant seeking dismissal of a suit based upon Rule 1.061 forum non conveniens must support the motion by affidavit or other evidence offered under oath." Pozo admits that he did not file any affidavits or present any evidence, but argues that this case falls under

1989See Thompson v. State, 438 So.2d 1005 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983), and Bell v. State, 394 So.2d 570 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981).

1989See Thompson v. State, 438 So.2d 1005 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983), and Bell v. State, 394 So.2d 570 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981).