MILLER

v.

STATE

Citator

Cited By

• MacChione v. State, 123 So. 3d 114 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)
  …er v. Hotel Corp. of Am., 144 So. 2d 813, 817 (Fla.1962) (“It should never be presumed that the legislature intended to enact purposeless and therefore useless, legislation.”); Quarantello v. Leroy, 977 So. 2d 648, 651 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 987 So. 2d 1210 (Fla.2008). The State’s argument and the trial court’s reasoning suffer from another fatal flaw: they are premised on a very broad and extravagant interpretation of the statute that draws inference upon inference to arrive at their conclusions. The…
• Chiropractic ONE, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto., 92 So. 3d 871 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012)
  …edio v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 46 So. 3d 1105, 1106 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). Likewise, statutory interpretation is generally a question of law subject to de novo review. See, e.g., Quarantello v. Leroy, 977 So. 2d 648, 651 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 987 So. 2d 1210 (Fla.2008). In this appeal Chiropractic One does not argue about whether it committed what amounts to fraud. It does not quibble with the conclusion that many of its billings were knowingly false, misleading, improper and unlawful. Rather its posit…
• State v. Griffin, 4 So. 3d 1218 (Fla. 2009)
  …PER CURIAM. We initially accepted jurisdiction to review Griffin v. State, 979 So. 2d 1253 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008), review granted, 987 So. 2d 1210 (Fla.2008) (table), a decision in which the Fourth District Court of Appeal certified a question to be of great public importance. After further, full consideration, we have determined that we should exercise our discretion and discharge jurisdictio…