green
Positive treatment
9.5 score
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Leonard Patrick Gonzalez, Jr. v. State of Florida
See Kramer v. State, 882 So.2d 512, 512 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (holding that trial judge’s response to jury’s request for a magnifying glass without informing either the State or the defendant of request was outside the express notice requirements of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.410, but was harmless error); Jackson v. State, 832 So.2d 932, 933 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (stating, although not at issue, the fact that the jury asked for and was provided a magnifying glass, with no objection, to examine pictures of victim’s injury).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Murdock v. State
“The inquiry in this case turns on the [defendant’s] state of mind, not the investigator’s, and the potential effect on [defendant] of the words used....’ ” Jackson v. State, 832 So.2d 932, 934 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (quoting D.N. v. State, 529 So.2d 1217, 1223 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988), disapproved of on other grounds by State v. G.C., 572 So.2d 1380 (Fla.1991) (alterations in original)).
R.L.T. FINANCIAL MGMT., INC., a Florida corporation., & Robert L. Totaro
v.
LINCOLN BENEFIT LIFE CO., a foreign corporation, d/b in Florida
v.
LINCOLN BENEFIT LIFE CO., a foreign corporation, d/b in Florida
No. 3D01-489.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Dec 26, 2002.
Hess & Heathcock and William Hess, Stuart, for appellants., Angones, Hunter, McClure, Lynch, William & Garcia and Christopher Lynch, Miami, for appellee.
Green, Levy, Shevin.
Published
Affirmed. See Sims v. Brown, 574 So.2d 131, 133 (Fla.1991); Secada v. Weinstein, 563 So.2d 172 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Crews v. Warren, 157 So.2d 553 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963); § 90.615(2), Fla. Stat. (2000).