JOSEPH E. ROBBINS, ET AL., APPELLANTS,

v.

FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO., ETC., APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• Corfan Banco Asuncion Paraguay v. Ocean Bank, 715 So. 2d 967 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)
  …. Eventually, Silva acknowledged that he owed Corfan Bank $72,972.00 and gave Corfan a series of post-dated checks to repay that amount, plus interest. However all the checks bounced. . See Byte Int’l Corp. v. Maurice Gusman Residuary Trust No. 1, 629 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Harper v. Cooper, 226 So. 2d 878 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969); Infante v. State, 197 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967); Dotty v. State, 197 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967). . One respected treatise on the Uniform Commercial Code analyzes the…
• Burger King Corporation/Cigna Ins. Co. v. Moreno, 689 So. 2d 288 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)
  …and” in the statute as “or.” Unlike the cases relied upon by appellants, the present case does not involve a clear expression of legislative intent which is contrary to the plain language of the statute. See Byte Int’l Corp. v. Maurice Gusman Trust, 629 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Winemiller v. Feddish, 568 So. 2d 483, 486 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). The construction of the statute employed by the JCC meets the legislative aim, as expressed in section 440.15, Florida Statutes (1991), by eliminating supplemental b…
• Triplett v. State, 709 So. 2d 107 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)
  …ourt did not expressly consider whether the legislature intended that the conjunction “and” used between subsections 1 and 2 of the amended section 775.089(l)(a) should mean “or.” See Byte International Corp. v. Maurice Gusman Residuary Trust No. 1, 629 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Winemiller v. [*111] Feddish, 568 So. 2d 483 (Fla. 4th DCA1990)3. Since it appears that the “defendant’s offense” would always be a part of, and normally the culmination of, any “criminal episode,” the amendment appears meaningle…

Authorities Cited

• Cartier v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 594 So. 2d 755 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)