MIGUEL MADRASO, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 2006-06-14
No. 3D05-2678
Before GERSTEN, SUAREZ, and ROTHENBERG, JJ.
931 So. 2d 1025 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2006) Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases

Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Stuart v. State, 771 So. 2d 1252 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000).


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Lawnwood Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Rouse, 394 So. 3d 51 (Fla. 4th DCA 2024)
  • Ocean-Yachts, Inc. v. Fla. Yachts Int'l, Inc., 960 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)
    …arbitration agreements as they see fit. Just as they may limit by contract the issues which they will arbitrate, so too may they specify by contract the rules under which the arbitration will be conducted”); see also United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Ortiz, 931 So. 2d 1025, 1026 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (“Pursuant to section 44.103(2), Florida Statutes (2005), a court ‘may refer any contested civil action filed in a circuit or county court to nonbinding arbitration.’ ”); Preferred Mut. Ins. Co. v. Davis, 629 So. 2d 259, 26…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw