STEVE A. BROWN, APPELLANT,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• State v. Bradford, 787 So. 2d 811 (Fla. 2001)
  …, was dicta and not controlling.[3] Id. at 1283. During the pendency of the present case, the First District departed from the reasoning espoused by the Third and Fourth Districts and held that the statute is unconstitutional. See State v. Cronin, 774 So. 2d 871 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). In Cronin, the district court first determined that there was no support for the conclusion that the Legislature intended to make fraudulent intent an element of the statute at issue. See id. at 874. The court further held that…
• Kortum v. Sink, 54 So. 3d 1012 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)
  …, 868 So. 2d 512, 518 (Fla.2004). Should we find nothing which would indicate that such a limiting construction was intended by the legislature, however, we are precluded from rewriting the statute to preserve its constitutionality. State v. Cronin, 774 So. 2d 871, 874-75 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). In Cronin, we held that an anti-solicitation statute, section 817.234(8), Florida Statutes (1997), which prohibited a person from soliciting business for the purpose of making motor vehicle tort claims or claims for PIP…
• State v. Nash N. Cronin, 801 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 2001)
  …LEWIS, J. We have for review the decision of the First District Court of Appeal, State v. Cronin, 774 So. 2d 871 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000), which declared section 817.234(8) of the Florida Statutes invalid. The court also certified its decision to be in conflict with decisions of other district courts. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. This…