GARY BERNE, PETITIONER,
v.
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY & MOTOR VEHICLES, RESPONDENT

Fla. | 2012-03-08
No. SC10-2460
LABARGA and PERRY, JJ., concur., CANADY, C.J., PARIENTE, and POLSTON, JJ., concur in result., LEWIS and QUINCE, JJ., dissent.
84 So. 3d 257 Florida Supreme Court (2012) Positive Treatment
Cited by 1 case

Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

We initially accepted jurisdiction to review Florida Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Berne, 49 So.3d 779 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010), review granted, 65 So.3d 515 (Fla.2011) (table), on the basis that the decision of the district court expressly and directly conflicts with a decision of this Court and the decision of another district court of appeal. After further, full consideration, we have determined that we should exercise our discretion and discharge jurisdiction. Accordingly, we dismiss this case.

It is so ordered.

LABARGA and PERRY, JJ., concur.

CANADY, C.J., PARIENTE, and POLSTON, JJ., concur in result.

LEWIS and QUINCE, JJ., dissent.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Dep't of Hwy. Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Gino Dellacava, 100 So. 3d 234 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012)
    …titioner’s allegation that the Intoxilyzer 8000 utilized herein is not an approved instrument the department has cited the case of Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles [v. Berne], 49 So. 3d 779 ( [*236] [Fla. 5th DCA] 2010), rev. denied, [84 So. 3d 257], 37 Fla. L. Weekly S161 (Fla.2012), which reversed the Circuit Court of Orange County and held that the Intoxilyzer 8000 was an approved instrument if it is used with software evaluated by FDLE in accordance with Instrument Evaluation Procedures FD…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw