SCOTT EARLE, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
SCOTT EARLE, APPELLANT,
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
851 So. 2d 742
Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (2003)
Negative Treatment
Cited by 57 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
Scott Earle challenges an order that denied his rule 3.850 motion for postcon-viction relief. We reverse and remand for the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing to address Earle’s sentences in light of State v. Klayman, 835 So. 2d 248 (Fla.2002); State v. Travis, 808 So. 2d 194 (Fla.2002); Hayes v. State, 750 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1999); see also DeFreis v. State, 814 So. 2d 1166 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). We find no error with the trial court’s disposition of Earle’s other claims.
POLEN, C.J., SHAHOOD and MAY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (27 total)
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Nichols, 932 So. 2d 1067 (Fla. 2006)…CANTERO, J. In this case, we decide whether, in a suit for benefits under a personal injury protection policy, an insurer may ever recover attorney’s fees pursuant to the offer of judgment statute. We review Nichols v. State Farm Mutual, 851 So. 2d 742 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003), which held that an insurer could recover such fees but certified to us a question of great public importance. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.; State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Nichols, 913 So. 2d 598 (F…1 / 2
-
Palm Beach Polo Holdings, Inc. v. The Vill. OF Wellington, 904 So. 2d 652 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…y be read to extinguish claims besides those related to the pending case. It points out that multiple law suits were then pending between the parties.. It argues that the proposal did not comply with rule 1.442 and that Nichols v. State Farm Mutual, 851 So. 2d 742 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003), supports a reversal. We agree. Rule 1.442 makes it clear that proposals for settlement must state with particularity any relevant conditions and all non-monetary terms. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.442(c)(2)(C)-(D). As we said in Swartsel…
-
Bennett v. Am. Learning Sys. OF Boca Delray, Inc., 857 So. 2d 986 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…h Cir.2002). The purpose of the rule is to provide an efficient mechanism to convey an offer of settlement to the opposing party free from ambiguities so that the recipient can fully evaluate its terms and conditions. See Nichols v. State Farm Mut., 851 So. 2d 742, 746 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). Here, there [*989] was no ambiguity in the proposal for settlement. For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the order denying attorney’s fees and direct the trial court to determine the amount of attorney’s fees due pursuant…
Previewing 3 of 27 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Kathyrn Hayes v. State, 750 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1999)
- State v. Klayman, 835 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 2002)
- State v. Domina Travis, 808 So. 2d 194 (Fla. 2002)
- Penelope DeFREIS v. State, 814 So. 2d 1166 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)