FORD MOTOR COMPANY, PETITIONER,

v.

LISA SMITH, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF TROOPER ROBERT SMITH, DECEASED; DON REID FORD, INC.; MOTOROLA, INC.; MOTOROLA COMMUNICATIONS AND ELECTRONICS, INC.; FORT LAUDERDALE LINCOLN-MERCURY, INC.; J.P. SETINA MANUFACTURING COMPANY, AND JULIO GONZALEZ, RESPONDENTS

Citator

Cited By (12 total)

• Wiggins v. Fla. Dep't of Hwy. Safety & Motor Vehicles, 209 So. 3d 1165 (Fla. 2017)
  …idence. Notably, in another case involving section 322.2615 review, the'First District concluded that documents that are hopelessly in conflict could not amount to competent, substantial evidence. Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Trimble, 821 So. 2d 1084, 1086 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). Here, not only is the evidence hope [*1173] lessly in conflict, but the circuit court had the benefit of having objective and neutral video evidence available for review of the actual event, as opposed to two conflicting d…
• State v. Wiggins, 151 So. 3d 457 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)
  …ce against other credible evidence. Accordingly, the trial court did not exceed its proper scope of first-tier review. This understanding of first-tier review was reaffirmed by this court in Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Trimble, 821 So. 2d 1084 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002).7 In Trimble, the circuit court set aside a driver’s license suspension order based upon its determination that no competent substantial evidence supported the hearing officer’s decision that Trimble had been given an implied con…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• Clare v. Coleman (Parent) Holdings, Inc., 928 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)
  …rawn as counsel of record. He seeks merely to remove any stigma associated with the revocation of his pro hac vice status. Certiorari is the proper remedy for reviewing orders revoking an attorney’s pro hac vice status. See Ford Motor Co. v. Smith, 821 So. 2d 1084 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). For the writ to issue, the petitioner must demonstrate that the trial court departed “from the essential requirements of law causing material harm for which there is no adequate remedy on final appeal.” Katz v. N.M.E. Hosps., Inc…

Authorities Cited

• Keller Indus., Inc. v. Yoder, 625 So. 2d 82 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)
• Pepsico, Inc. v. Roque, 743 So. 2d 160 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)