CORNELIUS JOHN SHOUTEN, APPELLANT,
v.
UTAH INTERNATIONAL, INC., ET AL., APPELLEES
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Competent Substantial Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
GUNTHER, Judge.
We reverse on the authority of Finkelstein v. Southeast Bank, N.A., 490 So. 2d 976 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986) and DeLisi v. Smith, 401 So. 2d 925 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). The trial court erred in failing to modify the temporary injunction when there was no substantial competent evidence connecting the frozen assets with the proceeds of the alleged illegal activity. Furthermore, there was no evidence that the severance pay, payment in lieu of notification of termination, and vacation pay, for 1985 had been obtained through a “pattern of racketeering activity.” To be subject to an injunction, these payments would have to be “proceeds derived, directly or indirectly, from a pattern of racketeering activity” in violation of Florida Statutes, section 895.03 (1985), or section 772.103, Florida Statutes (Supp.1986).
REVERSED.
LETTS and WALDEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Banco Indus. de Venezuela v. Suarez, 541 So. 2d 1324 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…issolve the injunction. The trial court placed Banco in an intolerable and even stultifying position. On one hand, the court ruled that Banco was not entitled to the injunction because Banco had not traced the funds, see Shouten v. Utah Int’l, Inc., 515 So. 2d 366 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); § 895.03, Fla.Stat. (1987); on the other hand, the court denied Banco’s motion for expedited discovery, thereby precluding Banco from acquiring the information necessary to trace the funds. The resultant “Catch-22” situation vio…
-
BEE Line Ent. P'rs v. State, 791 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…through, conduct in violation of the RICO act. See De Lisi, 401 So. 2d at 928. Moreover, that burden would only be met if the state presented substantial, competent evidence tying the property to the illegal conduct. See Shouten v. Utah Int’l, Inc., 515 So. 2d 366 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). The appellants submit that the state has failed to meet that burden, suggesting that there was no evidence tying the bank accounts to the illegal conduct.3 De Lisi is almost directly on point. In De Lisi, the attorney general f…
Authorities Cited
- Finkelstein v. Se. Bank, N.A., 490 So. 2d 976 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)
- Hausbach v. Se. Bank, N.A., 490 So. 2d 976 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)
- DeLISI v. Smith, 401 So. 2d 925 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)