Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448
The 2024 Florida Statutes
|
||||||
|
Total Results: 20
Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 2024-04-01
Snippet: lives of both the unborn and their mothers. 17 17. See, e.g., Planned Parenthood of Cent. Mo
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2023-12-01
Snippet: contrary by Appellants, and is uncontested here. 17 17 Therefore, as discussed in footnote 11, any claim
Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 2023-08-24
Snippet: of the statute in their historical context. 17 17. Tomlinson argues that we should apply the
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2022-11-09
Snippet: prepare a defense. Glasserman v. State, 590 So. 2d 17, 17 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). Clearly, in the present
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2020-12-09
Snippet: to writing.” Rivera v. Dade County, 485 So. 2d 17, 17 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); see also Davis v. Heye, 743
Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 2020-08-27
Snippet: 2d at 908, we deny Brown’s habeas petition.17 17. The other statements that Brown references
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2018-11-21
Citation: 259 So. 3d 295
Snippet: Corp. v. Kimmel & Assocs., Inc., 916 So. 2d 17, 17-18 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005), the Fourth District Court
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2017-11-17
Citation: 229 So. 3d 896
Snippet: PER CURIAM. Appellant challenges the adequacy of his attorney’s. fee award, pursuant to section 627.428, Florida Statutes (2010), rendered in this first-party insurance dispute. As the first of two issues raised on appeal, we address whether the trial court erred by refusing to' consider the hours expended by Appellant’s attorney while he was working at a prior law firm—the firm that originated the claim on Appellant’s behalf. The trial court categorically rejected these hours because that
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2017-06-01
Citation: 223 So. 3d 342, 2017 WL 2374401, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 7886
Snippet: occurred. I do not believe the State met this burden.17 17 Sprouse v. State, 208 So. 3d 785 (Fla. 1st DCA
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2016-06-01
Citation: 194 So. 3d 475, 2016 WL 3065812, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 8292
Snippet: Deficiency-Real Estate Taxes for the year 2009 $44,017.17 Escrow Deficiency-Real Estate Taxes for
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2016-04-13
Citation: 187 So. 3d 1285, 2016 WL 1445590, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 5614
Snippet: Construction Corp. v. Kimmel & Associates, 916 So.2d 17, 17-18 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). Id,.Even though these cases
Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 2014-10-16
Citation: 152 So. 3d 504, 92 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 587, 39 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 617, 2014 Fla. LEXIS 3072
Snippet: result of that search was subject to suppression.17 17. By our ruling here, we do not reach the issue
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2014-07-11
Citation: 141 So. 3d 781, 2014 WL 3377094, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 10606
Snippet: added); Cooley v. Cooley, 106 So.3d 17, 17 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013). Accordingly, we reverse and
Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 2014-01-03
Citation: 132 So. 3d 176
Snippet: potential claim and should have been produced.17 17. See § 922.07, Fla. Stat. (2013); Fla. R. Crim
Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 2013-01-10
Citation: 107 So. 3d 362, 38 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 17, 2013 Fla. LEXIS 34, 2013 WL 105328
Snippet: Construction Corp. v. Kimmel & Associates, Inc., 916 So.2d 17, 17-18 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005), a plaintiff filed a declaratory
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2012-09-12
Citation: 96 So. 3d 1146, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 15238, 2012 WL 3964978
Snippet: appealable. See Rivera v. Dade Cnty., 485 So.2d 17, 17 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (stating "this court lacks jurisdiction
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2007-06-13
Citation: 958 So. 2d 1069, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 9141, 2007 WL 1687676
Snippet: for new trial in Glasserman v. State, 590 So.2d 17, 17 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), where the defendant was prepared
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2004-12-15
Citation: 888 So. 2d 736
Snippet: PROSECUTION AND DEFENSE OF FORFEITURE CASES, ¶ 17.02, 17-17 and 17-18, vol 2. (2003), this erroneously creates
Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 2003-04-17
Citation: 846 So. 2d 472, 2003 WL 1883612
Snippet: by counsel.'"); Studnicka v. Carlisle, 567 So.2d 17, 17 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) ("Petitioners who are represented
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1993-12-03
Citation: 627 So. 2d 589, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 12018, 1993 WL 495982
Snippet: parental rights. See In re Interest of T.J., 466 So.2d 17, 17-18 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Fla. R.Juv.P. 8.255(e);