WELLS FARGO GUARD SERVICES, INC. OF FLORIDA, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
AVIATION SALES COMPANY, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEE
WELLS FARGO GUARD SERVICES, INC. OF FLORIDA, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
AVIATION SALES COMPANY, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEE
547 So. 2d 1007
Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1989)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 6 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. Voelker v. Combined Ins. Co. of America, 73 So. 2d 403, 407 (Fla. 1954); Williams v. Office of Sec. & Intelligence, Inc., 509 So. 2d 1282 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 518 So. 2d 1277 (Fla.1987).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Goodman v. Martin Cnty. Health Dep't, 786 So. 2d 661 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…most certainly imposed to permit the Department [of Insurance] to monitor and perhaps influence the proceeding — by effecting a settlement or otherwise — for which it may be required to pay fees. Heredia v. Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles, 547 So. 2d 1007, 1008 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). We also reject the contention that the statute is unconstitutionally discriminatory, arbitrary, and oppressive and is not designed to achieve a legitimate purpose. A statute that is vague, arbitrary, or capricious and bea…
-
Hale v. Dep't OF Revenue, 973 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)…iled, see Goodman v. Martin County Health Department, 786 So. 2d 661 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Cordes, 644 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994), and Heredia v. Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, 547 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), and the Hales’ competing argument that DOR had waived the requirements of section 284.30 by failing to timely assert lack of notice. See Florida Medical Center, v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 511 So. 2d 677…
-
N.S. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 119 So. 3d 558 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)…a requirement which was almost certainly imposed to permit the Department to monitor and perhaps influence the proceedings-by effecting a settlement or otherwise-for which it may be required to pay fees.” Heredia v. Dep’t of High. Saf. & Motor Veh., 547 So. 2d 1007, 1008 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). However, the rationale behind the legislation is not thwarted by our holding here. Indeed, DCF provides notice to DFS in situations — like the present case — where section 284.30 does not apply. See § 284.385, Fla. Stat. (2…
Authorities Cited
- Voelker v. Combined Ins. Co. of Am., 73 So. 2d 403 (Fla. 1954)
- Williams v. Off. OF Sec. & Intelligence, Inc., 509 So. 2d 1282 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)