BRIAN WALTER KIPP, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 2d DCA | 1997-11-12
No. 94-00091
PARKER, C.J., and DANAHY and FULMER, JJ., concur.
703 So. 2d 1121 Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (1997) Positive Treatment
Cited by 5 cases

Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Pursuant to the mandate of the Supreme Court of Florida issued in this cause on September 11, 1997, the opinion of this court filed January 19, 1996, Kipp v. State, 668 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996), is withdrawn. In accord with the Supreme Court’s opinion, we have reviewed the record and determined that Kipp’s invocation of his right to remain silent was equivocal. Thus, under State v. Owen, 696 So. 2d 715 (Fla.1997), the police were not required to seek clarification or cease interrogation. The trial court did not err in denying Kipp’s motion to suppress the statements he made to police while incarcerated in Georgia.

We affirm the convictions and sentence.

PARKER, C.J., and DANAHY and FULMER, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Rados v. Rados, 791 So. 2d 1130 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
    …that there is no reasonable possibility that the mov-ant can establish entitlement if the issue were remanded, or it may reflect that there is a separate basis to deny the mov-ant fees. See, e.g., § 57.105(1), Fla.Stat. (1999); Pohlmann v. Pohlmann, 703 So. 2d 1121 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) (involving provision in marital settlement agreement that provided contractual basis for award of fees); Rosen, 696 So. 2d 697. See also § 61.16 (providing, in part, that court cannot award attorney’s fees to noncompliant party i…
    1 / 2
  • Mannella v. Mannella, 363 So. 3d 236 (Fla. 6th DCA 2023)
    …and when party willingly acquiesces to trial court’s imposition of burden of proof, party cannot argue for first time on appeal that trial court improperly assigned burden of proof)). 278 So. 3d 151, 151 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019); Pohlmann v. Pohlmann, 703 So. 2d 1121, 1125 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). Here, the trial court applied the proper standard—a substantial change in circumstances—in ruling on Former Husband’s petition to reduce his child support. The “heavier burden” standard does not apply. See § 61.14(7). IV.…
  • Newnum v. Weber, 715 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)
    …o agrees to the amount of child support, as the former husband did in the instant case, will face a heavier burden of proof to reduce such amount in a later modification proceeding. Tietig v. Boggs, 602 So. 2d 1-250 (Fla.1992); Pohlmann v. Pohlmann, 703 So. 2d 1121 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). The parties agree that at the time they agreed to child support of $550.00 per month, the former husband was earning considerably more. According to the former wife’s testimony, the former husband was earning about $85,000 per y…

Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw