DARRIN MCGILLIS, APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Mootness Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the order denying Mr. MeGillis’ motion to intervene as a party in a termination and dependency proceeding as he does not fall within the parameters of section 39.01(39), Florida Statutes (1997). See also J.L. v. G.M., 687 So. 2d 977 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)(Fla.R. Juv. P. 8.210(a) limits parties in juvenile proceeding). We note that the trial court properly recognized Mr. MeGillis as a “participant,” granting him the right to receive notice and to be heard in the proceeding. § 39.01(38), Fla. Stat. (1997).
We dismiss as moot the separate appeal from the order terminating visitation, case no. 98-499, because the trial court has since reconsidered that ruling and accorded Mr. MeGillis supervised visitation. Although we do not consider the correctness of the order on appeal, at oral argument, counsel for the Department of Children and Family Services conceded that Mr. MeGillis should have been notified of the emergency hearing.
Accordingly, we affirm the order denying the motion to intervene; and we dismiss as moot case number 98-499.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Abele v. Sawyer, 750 So. 2d 70 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…rule. We have previously ruled that a claim of intentional interference with a contract is sufficiently independent to withstand the bar of the economic loss rule. See Centro Nautico Representacoes Nauticas, LDA. v. International Marine Co-op, Ltd., 719 So. 2d 967, 970 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Bankers Risk Management Servs., Inc. v. Av-Med Managed Care, Inc., 697 So. 2d 158, 161 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). The Abele Group having sufficiently alleged all elements of the cause of action for tortious interference, the tria…
-
Int'l Marine Co-Op, Ltd. v. Centro Nautico Representacoes Nauticas, 761 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 1999)…tingency risk multiplier inapplicable to a court awarded attorney’s fee where the only authority for fees is predicated on a contractual provision and not a statute? Centro Nautico Representacoes Nauticas, LDA. v. International Marine Co-op, Ltd,., 719 So. 2d 967, 971 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. We recently answered the same certified question in the negative in Bell v. U.S.B. Acquisition, 734 So. 2d 403, 405 (Fla.1999). Accordingly, we quash Centro Náutico s…
-
The Coleman Co., Inc. v. Cargil Int'l Corp., 731 So. 2d 2 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…forcement of this oral contract was barred by the statute of frauds, we need not reach Cargil’s alternative theory of “lack of reasonable notice” by Coleman of the cancellation of the contract. See e.g., Centro Nautico v. International Marine Co-op, 719 So. 2d 967 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). We also reverse the jury’s finding for Cargil on Coleman’s counterclaim for account stated. Coleman’s claim was meritorious. It was clear from the record that Cargil did not dispute the invoices upon which the claim was based.…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- J.L. and M.O. v. G.M., T.M., P.L., 687 So. 2d 977 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)