GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
LUMBERMENS MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY, DIEGO, POTESTAD AND FAUSTINA POTESTAD, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS HUSBAND AND WIFE, APPELLEES
GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT,
LUMBERMENS MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY, DIEGO, POTESTAD AND FAUSTINA POTESTAD, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS HUSBAND AND WIFE, APPELLEES
462 So. 2d 534
Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1985)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 35 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. Allstate Insurance Co. v. Dairyland Insurance Co., 271 So. 2d 457 (Fla.1972); Sellers v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 185 So. 2d 689, 692 (Fla.1966); Chicago Insurance Co. v. Dominguez, 420 So. 2d 882, 885 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982), pet. for review denied, 430 So. 2d 450 (Fla.1983); United States Services Automobile Association v. Utica Mutual Insurance Co., 271 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (18 total)
-
Dep't of Agric. & Consumer Servs. v. Mid-Florida Growers, Inc., 521 So. 2d 101 (Fla. 1988)…2d 618 (1981). The fact that healthy trees were confiscated does not supply that proof. Inherent in the decision of Nordmann v. Florida Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services, 473 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985), which cited Denney v. Conner, 462 So. 2d 534 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), whereby the regulations of the department authorizing the extinction of supposedly healthy plants in a canker emergency were approved, is the finding that no compensation is required. I would so construe and affirm that view. He…
-
Haire v. Fla. Dep't OF Agric. & Consumer Servs., 870 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 2004)…great distances by wind and rain. See Sapp Farms, Inc. v. Fla. Dep’t of Agric. & Consumer Servs., 761 So. 2d 347, 348 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Nordmann v. Fla. Dep’t of Agric. & Consumer Servs., 473 So. 2d 278, 280 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Denney v. Conner, 462 So. 2d 534, 536 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). In Denney, the First District, in reviewing an immediate final order issued by the Department, held that the “department has shown that the threat to the public interest in the citrus industry represented by citrus canker i…
-
Fla. Dep't of Agric. & Consumer Servs. v. John M. and Patricia A. Haire, 836 So. 2d 1040 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…lice power to authorize the destruction of apparently healthy citrus trees under a citrus canker eradication program pursuant to prior Department rules. See Nordmann v. Fla. Dep’t of Agric., 473 So. 2d 278, 280 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Denney v. Conner, 462 So. 2d 534, 537 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). Nordmann and Denney upheld [*1048] Department rules requiring the destruction of citrus trees within 125 feet of a canker infected tree as a proper exercise of the state police power and thus constitutional. See Nordmann, 4…
Previewing 3 of 18 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Sellers v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 185 So. 2d 689 (Fla. 1966)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Dairyland Ins. Co., 271 So. 2d 457 (Fla. 1972)
- Chicago Ins. Co. v. Jose C. Dominguez, M.D., 420 So. 2d 882 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)
- United Servs. Auto. Ass'n v. Utica Mut. Ins. Co., 271 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973)