A.B., A JUVENILE, APPELLANT,

v.

THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• Henry v. State, 581 So. 2d 928 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)
  …sentence” provision — without change. Under ordinary principles of statutory construction, that is at least some indication that the legislature approved of the Brown court’s construction of the unchanged part of the statute. See Davies v. Bossert, 449 So. 2d 418, 420 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). While we are bound by Brown, the Brown interpretation is also the most logical one. It results in a harmonious reading of the sentencing provisions of paragraphs (4)(a) (habitual felony offender) and (4)(b) (habitual violen…
• Mancini v. Personalized AIR Conditioning & Heating, Inc., 702 So. 2d 1376 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
  …nt to plaintiffs suit for libel. Failure to comply with the notice provision of section 770.01 requires dismissal of the complaint for failure to state a cause of action. See Gifford v. Bruckner, 565 So. 2d 887 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Davies v. Bossert, 449 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Cummings v. Dawson, 444 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). If section 770.01 applies, defendant is entitled to certio-rari relief from the trial court’s refusal to dismiss the complaint for the failure to meet this pre-suit requirem…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• Gifford v. Bruckner, 565 So. 2d 887 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)
  …at section 770.01 does not apply when an action is brought against a non-media defendant. Bridges v. Williamson, 449 So. 2d 400 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). A thorough analysis of the term “medium,” as used in the statute, was conducted in Davies v. Bossert, 449 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), with the court concluding that the legislature intended to include only television and radio broadcasters. Despite ap- [*889] pellees’ claim that Florida Aerial is engaged in “media activities [and] is a media defendant,” we cann…

Authorities Cited

• In the Interest of J. M. v. State, 292 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)