GOOCH SUPPORT SYSTEMS, INC., GOOCH ENTERPRISES, INC., HAL GOOCH AND CHRIS GOOCH, APPELLANTS,

v.

MAHALEEL LEE LUSTER, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• Atwater v. City OF Cape Coral, 120 So. 3d 595 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)
  …because the two statutes seemingly covered the same subject matter, the more specific provisions of section 45.032, rather than the more general provisions of section 43.19, applied to the pending surplus funds. See generally Parole Comm’n v. Smith, 896 So. 2d 966, 970 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (“[I]n construing conflicting statutes, a specific statute covering a particular subject area controls over a statute covering the same and other subjects in more general terms.”). • Surplus Funds Become Unclaimed Property…
• Evans v. State, 125 So. 3d 799 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)
  …rpreted so as to accomplish rather than defeat their purpose.’ ”) (quoting Lewis v. Mosley, 204 So. 2d 197, 201 (Fla.1967)). The well-recognized purpose of the Ryce Act is to “protect society from sexually violent predators.” Parole Comm’n v. Smith, 896 So. 2d 966, 968 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. denied, 911 So. 2d 793 (Fla.2005); see also Anderson v. State, 93 So. 3d 1201, 1210 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012 (Padovano, J., concurring) (“The purpose of the Jimmy Ryce Act is to isolate and treat persons who are presently dangerou…
• David v. Flint, 900 So. 2d 782 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)
  …onverted it to a direct appeal. David challenges the trial court’s determination that Flint could not be on conditional release supervision while detained under the Jimmy Ryce Act.1 Given this court’s recent decision in Parole Commission v. Smith, 896 So. 2d 966, 970 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005), concluding that “an individual may be on conditional release supervision while detained under the Ryce Act,” we reverse. Reversed. NORTHCUTT and VILLANTI, JJ., concur. . § 394.910-.931, Fla. Stat. (2004).…