MORRIS K. ANDERSON, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
ALTENBERND, Judge.
Morris K. Anderson appeals the denial of his motion for relief from judgment, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540, which challenges his designation as a sexual predator. Although this court recently receded from its prior case law on this issue in King v. State, 911 So. 2d 229 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (holding that challenges to a sexual predator designation should now be raised through a motion for postconviction relief), the trial court fully addressed Anderson’s claims on the merits, whether considered as a rule 1.540 motion or as a motion for postconviction relief. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Anderson’s claim.
Affirmed.
CANADY, and LaROSE, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mourning v. Ballast Nedam Constr., Inc., 964 So. 2d 889 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…t also relies heavily on this court’s opinion in Stowe v. Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Co., 937 So. 2d 156 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006), in advocating a bright-line rule. However, this court in Nicholson-Kenny Capital Management Inc. v. Steinberg, 932 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006), in fact made an exception to the bright-line rule in the application of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.820(h). In Nicholson-Kenny, this court would not permit Steinberg to engage in “gotcha” tactics. The dissent attempts to d…1 / 2
-
Stowe v. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 937 So. 2d 156 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…ure to request a trial de novo within the time provided in the rules creates a ‘right to enforce an arbitration award that has become final and binding as a result of a failure to request a trial.’ ” Nicholson-Kenny Capital Mgmt., Inc. v. Steinberg, 932 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)’ (quoting Johnson v. Levine, 736 So. 2d 1235, 1238 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)). When it comes to interpreting rules of civil procedure, often the job of an intermediate appellate court is to read the tea leaves of Florida supreme court…
-
Beyond Billing, Inc. v. Spine & Orthopedic Ctr., 362 So. 3d 256 (Fla. 2d DCA 2023)…ecuting a joint stipulated motion to amend the case management order. The purpose of filing a motion for trial under rule 1.820 is to give the other side "notice that it should be prepared for trial." Nicholson- Kenny Cap. Mgmt., Inc. v. Steinberg, 932 So. 2d 321, 325 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). A party substantially complies with the rule by clearly indicating its desire to proceed to trial within the applicable twenty-day period, even if it does not file a document specifically styled as a motion for trial de no…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- King v. State, 911 So. 2d 229 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)