STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
BRUCE MICHAEL FOSTER, 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 held that the reasoning in a prior case, State v. Davis, is dispositive of the instant case.
The State appealed the dismissal of an information charging Bruce Michael Foster with violating the Florida Litter Law for illegally draining hazardou…
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.
PER CURIAM.
The State of Florida appeals the dismissal of an information charging Bruce Michael Foster with a single count of violating section 403.413(4)(c), Florida Statutes (2001). That section is known as the Florida Litter Law and Foster was charged with its violation for illegally draining hazardous fuels onto or into the ground located on property that was owned by him.
The trial court dismissed the action relying upon its disposition of a similar case, the facts of which are included in this court’s opinion in State v. Davis, 838 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003).
The reasoning and disposition included in Davis are also dispositive of the instant case. The order of dismissal is vacated and we remand for further proceedings.1
REVERSED and REMANDED.
PETERSON, THOMPSON and TORPY, JJ., concur. . State v. Foster, 840 So. 2d 1174 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) was consolidated with the instant case at the trial level and also dismissed. That dismissal was reversed by this court and incidentally the defendant was Bruce Michael Foster's father.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Eric Michael Patz, M.D. v. Dep't OF Health, 864 So. 2d 79 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)…r lulled into inaction, that he was in some extraordinary way prevented from asserting his rights, or that he mistakenly asserted his rights in the wrong forum. Thus, equitable tolling does not apply. See Whiting v. Florida Dept. of Law Enforcement, 849 So. 2d 1149, 1151 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)(affirm-ing dismissal of an untimely petition for an administrative hearing under section 120.569(2)(c) because Whiting’s mistaken belief as to when the time period for filing a petition ended was insufficient to support a c…
-
O'Donnell's Corp. v. Himrod Ambroise, 858 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…neglect has been eliminated as an exception to the dismissal requirement of the statute, equitable tolling remains as a viable exception. See Machules v. Department of Admin., 523 So. 2d 1132 (Fla.1988); Whiting v. Florida Dep’t of Law Enforcement, 849 So. 2d 1149 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); see also Cann v. Department of Children & Family Servs., 813 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). Application of equitable tolling as an exception to the dismissal requirement of section 120.569(2)(c) clearly indicates that the provis…
-
Williams v. Albertson's, Inc., 879 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…tions period and the courthouse was open. Instead, the attorney chose to help another attorney with a personal matter on the last day to file. As Albertson’s notes, these facts are closer to those in Whiting v. Florida Department of Law Enforcement, 849 So. 2d 1149 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). In Whiting, the appellant attempted to fax his notice of appeal on the last day to file. After two unsuccessful attempts to- fax, the appellant “elected” to try-again the next day. This Court held those facts were insufficient t…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Sharpe v. State, 838 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)
- State v. Foster, 840 So. 2d 1174 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)