RANDY TUCKER, APPELLANT,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• In re Amendments to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, 604 So. 2d 1110 (Fla. 1992)
• Amendments to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, 773 So. 2d 1098 (Fla. 2000)
  …rable dissatisfaction arose on the adoption of the 1980 rule, particularly because of the creation of the temporary restraining order with its inflexible time limits. See Sun Tech Inc. of South Florida v. Fortune Personnel Agency of Fort Lauderdale, 412 So. 2d 962 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). The attempt to balance the rights of the parties in 1980 failed because of court congestion and the inability in the existing circumstances to accommodate the inflexible time limits. These changes will restore injunction procedu…
• Mike Smith Pontiac GMC, Inc. v. Smith, 486 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)
  …mony in full but neither the dealership corporation nor Ginsburg were allowed to present testimony. This alone constitutes a due process violation requiring reversal. See Sun Tech Inc. of South Florida v. Fortune Personnel Agency of Fort Lauderdale, 412 So. 2d 962 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Empire Pontiac Center, Inc. v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 322 So. 2d 927 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975).…

Authorities Cited

• Hart v. State, 364 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)