AMENDMENT TO FLORIDA FAMILY LAW RULE OF PROCEDURE 12.490
Upon further consideration, having ascertained that the term “master” is used not only in the Family Law Rules and Forms but also in other types of court rules and forms and throughout the Florida Statutes, the Court is concerned that changing the term “master” only in the Family Law Rules and Forms may create unnecessary confusion system-wide. Thus, while the Court is sensitive to the issues raised regarding the use of the term “master,” it has nevertheless concluded that it would be inappropriate to presently change the term “master” only in the Family Law Rules and Forms.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that The Emergency Petitions of the Family Law Rules Committee and the Family Law Section of the Florida Bar regarding changing the term “master” in the Family Law Rules and Forms are hereby denied, but without prejudice to seek this Court’s reconsideration of the matter if and when appropriate at a future date.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (16 total)
-
Williams v. Davis, 974 So. 2d 1052 (Fla. 2007)…mises in a safe condition for invitees); Malicki v. Doe, 814 So. 2d 347, 362 (Fla.2002) (using the McCain foreseeability analysis to determine whether to impose a duty upon a party for negligent hiring of an employee); Nova Se. Univ., Inc. v. Gross, 758 So. 2d 86, 88 (Fla.2000) (imposing a duty on a university not to assign students to an internship site in an unreasonably dangerous location); Henderson v. Bowden, 737 So. 2d 532, 535-37 (Fla.1999) (using McCain to find a duty on the part of sheriff’s deputie…
-
Davis v. Monahan, 832 So. 2d 708 (Fla. 2002)…than running from any other date prescribed elsewhere in s. 95.11(3), except as provided within this subsection. (Emphasis added.) . We view Monahan's complaint in a light most favorable to her case. See Nova Southeastern University, Inc. v. Gross, 758 So. 2d 86 (Fla.2000).…
-
Alterra Healthcare Corp. v. Est. OF Francis Shelley, 827 So. 2d 936 (Fla. 2002)…employer-employee relationship as qualifying for the "special relationship” exception to the general rule that "a person or other entity generally has no duty to take precautions to protect another against criminal acts of third parties”), approved, 758 So. 2d 86 (Fla.2000). However, the role of the employer as a custodian of employee personnel records was not the focus in Gross. It is not entirely clear whether the employer-employee relationship would satisfy the United States Supreme Court’s “close relatio…
Previewing 3 of 16 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence