TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC., ETC., ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
JUAN R. ORTIZ AND AIDA ORTIZ, HIS WIFE, APPELLEES
TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC., ETC., ET AL., APPELLANTS,
JUAN R. ORTIZ AND AIDA ORTIZ, HIS WIFE, APPELLEES
442 So. 2d 988
Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1983)
Caution
Cited by 13 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 100 S.Ct. 559, 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980); Ford Motor Co. v. Atwood Vacuum Machine Co., 392 So. 2d 1305 (Fla.1981), cert. denied mem., 452 U.S. 901, 101 S.Ct. 3024, 69 L.Ed.2d 401 (1981); Kravitz v. Gebrueder Pletscher Druckgusswaremfabrik, 442 So. 2d 985 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Williams v. State, 757 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)…), rev. denied, 503 So. 2d 327 (Fla.1987). A formal arrest, complete with fingerprinting and formal charges, is not always necessary to start the running of the speedy trial time. State v. Lail, 687 So. 2d 873 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); State v. Christian, 442 So. 2d 988 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Bannister v. State, 382 So. 2d 77 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). However, something more than an investigatory detention is required. Lail; Christian. A person may be “in custody” for purposes of Miranda1 requirements, but not for purpose…
-
State v. Lail, 687 So. 2d 873 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…trial. See State v. Andrews, 376 So. 2d 9 (Fla.1979). Though custody for speedy trial purposes does not necessarily mean that a defendant must be formally arrested, it does mean something more than an investigatory detention. See State v. Christian, 442 So. 2d 988 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). See also Covello v. State, 455 So. 2d 1321 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). Custody for Fourth Amendment purposes, however, does not constitute custody for speedy trial purposes. See Griffin v. State, 474 So. 2d 777 (Fla.1985), cert. denied,…
-
State v. Hurley, 760 So. 2d 1127 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…ich was granted by the trial court. The State argues that Hurley was not arrested on December 22, 1997, but was simply subjected to an involuntary custodial interrogation citing, State v. Lail, 687 So. 2d 873 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); State v. Christian, 442 So. 2d 988 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); and Snead v. State, 346 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). We find those cases to have involved involuntary custodial interrogatories with no statements that the defendants were being arrested; therefore, they are inapplicable. In t…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (U.S. 1980)
- Jaffer v. Miami Beach Redev. Agency, 392 So. 2d 1305 (Fla. 1980)
- Kravitz v. Gebrueder Pletscher Druck-Gusswaremfabrik, 442 So. 2d 985 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Atwood Vacuum Mach. Co. v. Ford Motor Co., 452 U.S. 901 (U.S. 1981)
- Prenzler v. Pike, 452 U.S. 901 (U.S. 1981)