green
Positive treatment
8.2 score
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Althouse v. Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office
Inc. v. Univ. of Fla. Bd. of Trs., 83 So.3d 1012 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (“[A]n in-camera inspection is ‘generally the only way for a trial court to determine whether or not a claim of exemption applies.’” (quoting Garrison v. Bailey, 4 So.3d 683, 684 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009))).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Environmental Turf, Inc. v. University of Florida Board of Trustees
However, as to the remaining documents, an in-camera inspection is “generally the only way for a trial court to determine whether or not a claim of exemption applies.” Garrison v. Bailey, 4 So.3d 683, 684 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (citing Weeks v. Golden, 764 So.2d 633, 635 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)); see also Lopez v. Singletary, 634 So.2d 1054, 1058 (Fla.1993) (remarking that “it is for a judge to determine, in an in camera inspection, whether particular documents must be disclosed”).
Rodney BURCH, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee
4D08-4687.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Feb 4, 2009.
Rodney Burch, South Bay, for pro se., No appearance required for appellee.
Farmer, Taylor, Ciklin.
Published
Affirmed. See Zink v. State, 943 So.2d 895 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006), Scanes v. State, 876 So.2d 1238 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied 892 So.2d 1014 (Fla.2004).