DAVID MAYOLO, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
DAVID MAYOLO, APPELLANT,
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
692 So. 2d 939
Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (1997)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 3 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
The record excerpts attached to the order summarily denying David Mayolo’s rule 3.850 motion do not conclusively refute his allegations that the public defender’s office had a conflict due to its prior representation of a state witness and that he was not given prior notice that a fee for the public defender’s services would be assessed. The order denying the motion is reversed and the case is remanded for evidentiary hearing or attachment of additional record excerpts that show that Mayolo is not entitled to any relief on those two issues. We agree with the trial court’s denial of the remainder of his claims.
GLICKSTEIN, STONE and POLEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pope v. Winter Park Healthcare Grp., Ltd., 939 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…adise, Inc. v. Greenfield, 417 So. 2d 306, 307 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). In fact, the Third District has referred to the rule of non-liability of independent contractors as the “riddled rule” because it is “riddled with exceptions.” See Gordon v. Sanders, 692 So. 2d 939, 941, (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); City of Coral Gables v. Prats, 502 So. 2d 969, 971 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). As a matter of Florida tort law, the key exception to this rule of non-liability in medical negligence cases arises where the physician is either an a…1 / 2
-
Hall v. State, 784 So. 2d 491 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…ay such sums. The record excerpts attached to the order summarily denying Hall’s motion do not conclusively refute his allegations that he was not given prior notice that a fee for the public defender’s services would be assessed. Mayolo v. State, 692 So. 2d 939 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). The order denying the motion is reversed and the case is remanded for evidentiary hearing or attachment of additional record excerpts that show that Hall is not entitled to any relief on that issue. We agree with the trial court…
-
Garcia v. S. Cleaning Serv., Inc., 360 So. 3d 1209 (Fla. 1st DCA 2023)…basis.” Id. at 863. In affirming, the Third District explained that the “mere existence of a contract does not create vicarious liability as to third persons for the negligent acts of the independent contractor.” Id.; see also Gordon v. Sanders, 692 So. 2d 939, 941 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (“[W[here the contracting party makes it her or his duty to perform a task, that party cannot escape liability for the damage caused to the other contracting party by the negligence of independent contractors hired to carry…