VAN POYCK

v.

MCDONOUGH

Citator

Cited By

• Cassell v. India, 964 So. 2d 190 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)
  …India’s claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Our standard of review of a trial court’s ruling on a motion for directed verdict is de novo. See Contreras v. U.S. Sec. Ins. Co., 927 So. 2d 16, 20 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006), review denied, 954 So. 2d 28 (Fla.2007). The question of whether an alleged defamatory statement is absolutely privileged is a question of law for the court. See Resha v. Tucker, 670 So. 2d 56, 57 (Fla.1996). An absolute privilege has been explained, as follows: “These ‘absol…
• van Poyck v. State, 116 So. 3d 347 (Fla. 2013)
  …summarily denied Van Poyck’s motion, and we affirmed the denial of relief. Van Poyck v. State (Van Poyck V), 961 So. 2d 220, 223, 227-28 (Fla.2007), cert. denied, 552 U.S. 1098, 128 S.Ct. 897, 169 L.Ed.2d 728 (2008); see also Van Poyck v. McDonough, 954 So. 2d 28 (Fla.2007) (denying Van Poyck’s fourth state habeas petition) (table); Van Poyck v. McCollum (Van Poyck VI), 646 F. 3d 865 (11th Cir.2011) (affirming the dismissal of Van Poyck’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action seeking access to evidence to conduct DNA test…
• THE Florida BAR v. Patrick, 67 So. 3d 1009 (Fla. 2011)
  …ing dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation). The referee did not recommend finding a violation of this rule. Disciplinary History. Respondent was the subject of two previous disciplinary matters. One of those cases, Florida Bar v. Patrick, 954 So. 2d 28 (Fla. Mar. 8, 2007) (No. SC06-178), is relevant to the present case because it shows Respondent has a history of placing his own financial interests above those of his clients. In that case, the Court issued an order imposing a public reprimand and…