CHARLES IRA BINSTOK, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
CHARLES IRA BINSTOK, APPELLANT,
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
573 So. 2d 1049
Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (1991)
Caution
Cited by 24 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED. See United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 100 S.Ct. 1870, 64 L.Ed.2d 497 (1980); Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 93 S.Ct. 2041, 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973); Thomas v. State, 367 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); and Donovan v. State, 417 So. 2d 674 (Fla.1982).
ANSTEAD, DELL and STONE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Major League Baseball v. Morsani, 790 So. 2d 1071 (Fla. 2001)…p., 598 So. 2d 112, 113 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) ("The appellee is estopped from asserting the limitations defense because it stipulated to the sixty-day extension of the pre-suit [*1079] screening period.”); Glantzis v. State Automobile Mutual Ins. Co., 573 So. 2d 1049, 1050 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (”[W]e believe the evidence is such that the doctrine of equitable estoppel applies preventing State Auto from resorting to the statute of limitations as a defense.”); Olenek v. Bennett, 537 So. 2d 160, 161 (Fla. 5th DCA 19…
-
Fla. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. S.A.P., 835 So. 2d 1091 (Fla. 2002)…ay v. H.B. Corp., 598 So. 2d 112, 113 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (“The appellee is estopped from asserting the limitations defense because it stipulated to a sixty-day extension of the pre-suit screening period....”); Glantzis v. State Auto. Mut. Ins. Co., 573 So. 2d 1049, 1050 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (“[W]e believe the evidence is such that the doctrine of equitable estoppel applies preventing State Auto from resorting to the statute of limitations as a defense.”); Olenek v. Bennett, 537 So. 2d 160, 161 (Fla. 5th DCA 19…
-
Hankey v. Susan Yarian, M.D., 755 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 2000)…4 So. 2d 640 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (finding wife’s suit timely filed because husband’s absence from country [*97] tolled statute of limitations period applicable to wife’s actions to enforce property settlement); Glantzis v. State Auto. Mut. Ins. Co., 573 So. 2d 1049 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (preventing defendant from relying on the statute of limitations when defendant had accepted a demand for arbitration thereby suspending the statute of limitations under section 95.051(1)(g)). Because the word “toll” has been co…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (U.S. 1973)
- United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (U.S. 1980)
- Donovan v. State, 417 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 1982)
- Thomas v. State, 367 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)