Harrison v. Coronet Indus., Inc., 18 So. 3d 735 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009). · Go Syfert
Search
Harrison v. Coronet Indus., Inc., 18 So. 3d 735 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
10 citation events (10 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: R.A. v. State (fladistctapp, 2013-06-12)
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers.
cited Cited as authority (rule) R.A. v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2013 · confidence medium
See J.H. v. State, 100 So.3d 1236, 1238 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012); N.P. v. State, 18 So.3d 735, 738 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) J.H. v. State (2×) also: Cited "see"
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2012 · confidence medium
When the trial court departs from the DJJ’s recommended supervision level, it must “ ‘[a]rticulate an understanding of the respective characteristics of the opposing restrictiveness levels’ and ... ‘logically and persuasively explain why, in light of these differing characteristics, one level is better suited’ than the other.” S.G. v. State, 26 So.3d 725, 726 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (quoting E.A.R., 4 So.3d at 638 ). “[T]he ‘needs of the child’ must be the focal point for the court when it is assessing where along the restrictiveness spectrum a child should be placed.” N.P. v.…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) R.C.B. v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2012 · confidence medium
See, e.g., E.A.R. v. State, 4 So.3d 614 , 633, 638-39 (Fla.2009); L.A.G. v. State, 58 So.3d 393, 394 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011); S.G. v. State, 26 So.3d 725, 726 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010); N.P. v. State, 18 So.3d 735, 737 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); B.L.R. v. State, 74 So.3d 173, 176-77 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011).
discussed Cited "see" R.B., A CHILD v. STATE OF FLORIDA
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
See J.H. v. State, 100 So. 3d 1236, 1238 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (“[T]he ‘needs of the child’ must be the focal point for the court when it is assessing where along the restrictiveness spectrum a child should be placed.” (alteration in original) (quoting N.P. v. State, 18 So. 3d 735, 737 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009))); S.G. v. State, 26 So. 3d 725, 726 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (“The court is required to discuss the restrictiveness level vis-à-vis the needs of the child.”).
cited Cited "see" S.C.E. v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2012 · signal: see · confidence high
See N.P. v. State, 18 So.3d 735 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); see also S.W. v. State, 26 So.3d 655 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010).
cited Cited "see" S.G. v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
See N.P. v. State, 18 So.3d 735, 738 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009).
cited Cited "see" SG v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
See N.P. v. State, 18 So.3d 735, 738 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009).
Jimmy HARRISON, Appellant,
v.
CORONET INDUSTRIES, INC., and United States Fire Insurance Company, Appellees
1D08-4442.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Oct 14, 2009.
18 So. 3d 735
Raymond O. Burger of Law Office of Raymond O. Burger, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant., William H. Rogner of Hurley, Rogner, Miller, Cox, Waranch & Westcott, P.A., Winter Park, for Appellees.
Hawkes, Barfield, Benton.
Published
1 passages pin-cited by 2 cases
Pinpoint authority: #40,120 of 633,719
Citer courts: District Court of Appeal of Fl… (2)
PER CURIAM.

Appellant has failed to respond to two orders of this Court directing him to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for failure to timely serve an Initial Brief. In both orders, this Court warned that the failure to respond would result in dismissal of the appeal. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.410. Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED, and Appellees’ motion to dismiss is DENIED as moot.

HAWKES, C.J., BARFIELD, and BENTON, JJ., concur.