MICHAEL T. CALVIT, APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL AFFAIRS, BUREAU OF CRIME VICTIM COMPENSATION, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court affirmed restitution ordered against a driver who caused a serious accident, affirmed a declaratory judgment for the driver's insurer finding no coverage for the restitution, and reversed a summary judgment for the victim in a civil suit.
The court affirmed the criminal restitution amount and the declaratory judgment for the insurer, but reversed the summary judgment entered for the victim in the civil suit.
A driver struck a pedestrian, causing severe injuries, and was ordered to pay substantial criminal restitution. The driver's insurer filed a declarato…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Territorial Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
KLEIN, Judge.
Appellant was severely beaten while on vacation in St. Maarten, Netherlands Antilles. He filed a victim relief claim pursuant to the Florida Crimes Compensation Act, which was denied on the basis that the crime occurred outside the territorial boundaries of the United States, and was therefore not compensable under section 960.03(3), Florida Statutes (1995), because it did not fall within the definition of a crime. Appellant relies on that portion of section 960.03(3), which, after defining crime as an “offenSe punishable under the laws of this state” goes on to define crime as including:
any such criminal act committed outside of this state against a resident of this state that would have been compensable if it had occurred in this state and that occurred in a state that does not have an eligible crime victim compensation program as the term is defined in the Federal Victims of Crime Act of 1984.
We agree that compensation was properly denied because the statute, as it presently reads,1 would only allow compensation for criminal acts committed in this state or another state, and not a crime committed in the Netherlands, Antilles. We therefore affirm.
DELL and GUNTHER, JJ., concur. . The legislature amended the statute effective May 1, 1997 so as to include acts of'mass violence or international terrorism committed outside of the United States, ch. 97-41, § 1, Laws of Fla.; however, the amendment is not applicable to appellant’s claim which occurred prior to the effective date of the amendment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (17 total)
-
Blumberg v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co., 790 So. 2d 1061 (Fla. 2001)…principles of judicial estoppel. “Judicial estoppel is an equitable doctrine that is used to prevent litigants from taking totally inconsistent positions in separate judicial, including quasi-judicial, proceedings.” Smith v. Avatar Properties, Inc., 714 So. 2d 1103, 1107 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). The doctrine prevents parties from “making a mockery of justice by inconsistent pleadings,” American Nat’l Bank v. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp., 710 F. 2d 1528, 1536 (11th Cir.1983), and “playing fast and loose with the cour…
-
Aery v. Wallace Lincoln-Mercury, LLC, 118 So. 3d 904 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…nt's motion for summary judgment, "an ADA plaintiff cannot simply ignore her SSDI contention that she was too disabled to work” but "must explain why that SSDI contention is consistent with her ADA claim.” Id.; see also Smith v. Avatar Props., Inc., 714 So. 2d 1103, 1108 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) ("[T]he determination of whether an individual who has certified total disability to the Social Security Administration is judicially estopped from later bringing a claim under the [Florida Civil Rights Act or] ADA will dep…
-
Pinkney Carter v. State, 980 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 2008)…ne that is used to prevent litigants from taking totally inconsistent positions in separate judicial, including quasi-judicial, proceedings.” Blumberg v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co., 790 So. 2d 1061, 1066 (Fla.2001) (quoting Smith v. Avatar Properties, Inc., 714 So. 2d 1103, 1107 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)). The doctrine prevents parties from “making a mockery of justice by inconsistent pleadings,” American Nat’l Bank v. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp., 710 F. 2d 1528, 1536 (11th Cir. 1983), and “playing fast and loose with the co…
Previewing 3 of 17 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence