FLORIDA DEMOCRATIC PARTY

v.

HOOD

Citator

Cited By

• Isabelle Kimball v. Publix Super Mkts., Inc., 901 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)
  …g that this court will not recognize a claim for spoliation when the alleged spoliator and the defendant in the underlying cause of action are the same, see Jost v. Lakeland Reg’l Med. Ctr., Inc., 844 So. 2d 656 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003), review dismissed, 888 So. 2d 622 (Fla.2004), Kimball’s motion to amend seeks to add a claim in which Pub-lix has impaired Kimball’s ability to bring a claim against the unidentified shopper, not Publix. Thus, the alleged spoliator and the defendant in the underlying action are not…
• Kennye Longley v. State, 902 So. 2d 925 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)
  …ing. Had Judge Kaney indicated this was the basis for the increased sentence, we may have considered this information sufficient to render the sentence “non-vindictive.” See, e.g., Pagnotti v. State, 821 So. 2d 466 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002), rev. denied, 888 So. 2d 622 (Fla.2004), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 1738, 161 L.Ed.2d 610 (2005) (imposition of 20 year sentence following probation revocation was not vindictive; although defendant had rejected court’s offer of 90 day sentence prior to revocation hearin…
• Williams v. State, 913 So. 2d 541 (Fla. 2005)
  …would allow the Court to exercise its all writs authority, and no such basis is apparent on the face of the petitions. C. Conclusion In the past, the Court has dismissed Bedford claims such as these by unpublished order. See, e.g., Floyd v. State, 888 So. 2d 622 (Fla.2004); Bell v. State, 888 So. 2d 621 (Fla.2004); Schultz v. State, 884 So. 2d 24 (Fla.2004). The present opinion is written “merely to clarify, for the benefit of the public and the Bar, this Court’s conclusion that it does not have jurisdictio…