PACIFIC INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD., APPELLANT,
v.
STERLING HOLDING, LLC, A FLORIDA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 2009-09-16
No. 3D09-1955
Before RAMIREZ, C.J., and WELLS and SUAREZ, JJ.
17 So. 3d 894 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2009) Positive Treatment
Cited by 3 cases
Opinion of the Court
SUAREZ, J.

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

SUAREZ, J.

Upon consideration of Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing of Order Dismissing Appeal and Lifting Stay, Appellee’s response, and the reply thereto, we deny the motion for rehearing of the order of dismissal as an unauthorized appeal of a non-final order. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.130.

Denied.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Candie Marie Anderson v. State, 87 So. 3d 774 (Fla. 2012)
    …ion of the Fifth District Court of Appeal in Anderson v. State, 48 So. 3d 1015 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010), on the basis that it expressly and directly conflicts with the decisions of Brown v. State, 764 So. 2d 741 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000), and Haygood v. State, 17 So. 3d 894 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009), on a question of law. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. Facts Candie Anderson entered a no contest plea to the charges of burglary of a dwelling, grand theft, and falsification of ownership to a pawnbrok…
  • Turner v. State, 29 So. 3d 361 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)
    …at a judgment or court order had been entered suspending his license, the presumption does not apply to the administrative suspension for failure to pay traffic fines. See § 322.34(2), Fla. Stat.; Brown, 764 So. 2d at 744; see also Haygood v. State, 17 So. 3d 894 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). While the driving record did not prove that Turner had knowledge of his suspended license, the state contends that it presented other evidence from which knowledge could be reasonably inferred. See § 322.34(3), Fla. Stat. (“In…
  • Candie Marie Anderson v. State, 48 So. 3d 1015 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)
    …lure to pay a traffic fine, an express exception to the statutory presumption. Here, the suspension is for not paying restitution under a payment plan. Even if Brown is distinguishable, however, we are nevertheless in conflict with Haygood v. State, 17 So. 3d 894 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009), which relied upon Brown's interpretation of the statute. . Of the two authorized methods of service, only personal delivery would provide direct proof of receipt. Certified mail, return receipt requested with restricted deliver…

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw