United Dominion Realty Trust, Inc. v. Penco Constr. Co., 108 So. 3d 1111 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013). · Go Syfert
Search
United Dominion Realty Trust, Inc. v. Penco Constr. Co., 108 So. 3d 1111 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
11 citation events (11 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: CALVIN MELVIN v. STATE OF FLORIDA (fladistctapp, 2018-05-09)
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers.
cited Cited as authority (rule) CALVIN MELVIN v. STATE OF FLORIDA
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2018 · confidence medium
Anthony v. State, 108 So. 3d 1111, 1113 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013).
discussed Cited "see" Hughes v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
See Anthony v. State, 108 So.3d 1111, 1119 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (finding that false statements made several hours apart on the same day in two different police interviews were separate criminal episodes (citing Cabrera v. State, 884 So.2d 482, 484 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004))).
discussed Cited "see" Joey Hughes v. State (2×)
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
See Anthony v. State, 108 So. 3d 1111, 1119 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (finding that false statements made several hours apart on the same day in two different police interviews were separate criminal episodes (citing Cabrera v. State, 884 So. 2d 482, 484 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004))).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Jahman Whitfield v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2016 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See Benjamin v. State, 77 So.3d 781, 784 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (quoting Binns v. State, 979 So.2d 439, 442 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)); see also Anthony v. State, 108 So.3d 1111, 1120 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (holding that two of appellant’s four convictions for providing *459 false information to police were barred by-double jeopardy).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Wright v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2014 · signal: compare · confidence medium
Compare Ramirez, 739 So.2d at 574 (holding that seventeen-year-old with limited criminal experience was in custody when told by police that they had evidence against him, confronted with evidence and statements from others, and questioned by two detectives in small room without being told he was free to go), with Anthony v. State, 108 So.3d 1111, 1117-18 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (holding adult woman, handcuffed and then released, in own home and not confronted with evidence of guilt, was not in custody); see also Duddles v. State, 845 So.2d 939, 940 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Bannister v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2014 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., Anthony v. State, 108 So.3d 1111, 1117-18 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (finding the defendant not to be in custody where a police officer removed her handcuffs and took her out of the police car, the interview occurred in the defendant’s spare bedroom, the defen dant was considered a witness rather than a suspect, the door to the spare room was left open, and the defendant was permitted to freely walk about the residence); Parks v. State, 644 So.2d 106, 107 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (causal link between arrest and incriminating statements to police broken where the defendant was released from cu…
UNITED DOMINION REALTY TRUST, INC.
v.
PENCO CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, etc.
No. 5D12-692.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Mar 15, 2013.
108 So. 3d 1111
G. Jeffrey Vernis and Stephanie M. Showe, of Vernis & Bowling of Palm Beach, P.A., North Palm Beach, for Appellant., Jeffrey S. Hammer and Griffith J. Winthrop, III, of Alvarez, Sambol & Winthrop, P.A., Orlando, for Appellee.
Berger, Evander, Perkins.
Published

Lead Opinion

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

EVANDER and BERGER, JJ., concur. PERKINS, T.R., Associate Judge, concurs specially, with opinion.

Concurrence

PERKINS, T.R., Associate Judge,

concurring specially.

I concur in the opinion of the majority and offer some additional explanation for the decision to affirm dismissal of Appellant’s cross-claim against Appellee without leave to amend. The trial court granted summary final judgment in favor of Appel-lee, finding it was not negligent in its dealings with the Appellant or the injured Plaintiff. That ruling was never challenged or appealed. As a consequence, the Appellant’s cross-claims sounding in contribution, negligence or common law indemnity were properly dismissed without leave to amend. See Murga v. United Prop. Cas. Ins. Co., 941 So.2d 482, 482 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (dismissal is proper where amendment is futile). Although the Appellant now claims that it could have asserted a contractual indemnity claim, it never did. More importantly, Appellant never asked the court for leave to amend its cross-claims. As a result, the trial court properly dismissed the then pending cross-claims with prejudice.