green
Positive treatment
17.2 score
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Robert Velazco v. the State of Florida
Relying upon the carefully reasoned order under review and accompanying attachments, we affirm the denial of the first and third claim without further elaboration, see Mann v. State, 770 So. 2d 1158, 1163 (Fla. 2000) (“Mann’s final subclaim in this issue . . . is procedurally barred because it was decided adversely to Mann on direct appeal and is now being recast as a claim of ineffective assistance.”); Cherry v. State, 659 So. 2d 1069, 1072 (Fla. 1995) (“We have consistently recognized that allegations of ineffective assistance cannot be used to circumvent the rule that [postconvictio…
discussed
Cited "see"
Williams v. State
(2×)
See Hill v. State , 226 So.3d 1085 , 1086 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) (holding that appellant raised a facially sufficient claim that, absent his testimony, there was no chance for his defense to succeed, and there was a reasonable probability that but for counsel's error, the results of the proceeding would have been different).
discussed
Cited "see"
Williams v. State
(2×)
See Hill v. State , 226 So.3d 1085 , 1086 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) (holding that appellant raised a facially sufficient claim that, absent his testimony, there was no chance for his defense to succeed, and there was a reasonable probability that but for counsel's error, the results of the proceeding would have been different).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
PATRICK ROBERTS v. STATE OF FLORIDA
See, e.g., Hill v. State, 226 So. 3d 1085, 1086 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) (reversing the summary denial of an ineffective assistance claim and finding prejudice to be sufficiently alleged where the defendant claimed counsel offered deficient advice about his decision to testify because he could have "provided an innocent explanation for the presence of his DNA on the firearm used in the offenses" and "absent his testimony, there was no chance for his defense to succeed"); -7- Loudermilk v. State, 106 So. 3d 959, 960-61 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (reversing, in a case involving sexual abuse of a minor where…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Martha ZAMORA and Odilio P. Fuentes
v.
TOWER HILL PRIME INSURANCE COMPANY
v.
TOWER HILL PRIME INSURANCE COMPANY
No. 3D16-1917.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Oct 4, 2017.
David B. Pakula, P.A., and David B. Pakula (Pembroke Pines); Perry & Neb-lett, P.A., and David A. Neblett and Jack Wynn, for appellants., Methe & Rockenbach, P.A., and Kara Berard Rockenbach (West Palm Beach), for appellee.
Lindsey, Logue, Luck.
Published
ON CONFESSION OF ERROR
PER CURIAM.Martha Zamora and Odilio P. Fuentes, the plaintiffs below, appeal an order granting'final summary judgment in favor of their insurer, Tower Hill Prime Insurance Company. Upon Tower Hill’s commendable confession of error, and because genuine issues of material fact exist as to the amount of the actual cash value of the insured loss at hand, we reverse the final summary judgment and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings. See § 627.7011(3)(a), Fla. Stat. (2016); Siegel v. Tower Hill Signature Ins. Co., 3D16-1861, 225 So.3d 974, 977, 2017 WL 3722502, at *3 (Fla. 3d DCA Aug. 30, 2017); Francis v. Tower Hill Prime Ins. Co., 224 So.3d 259 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017).
Reversed and remanded.