ENOCH E. DINKENS, JR., PETITIONER,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT

Citator

Cited By

• Worley v. Cent. Fla. Young Men's Christian Ass'n, Inc., 228 So. 3d 18 (Fla. 2017)
  …able, pursuant to our decision in Boecher, if evidence of a referral relationship can be shown. See Worley, 163 So. 3d at 1246 (citing Brown v. Mittelman, 152 So. 3d 602 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014), and Steinger, Iscoe & Greene, P.A. v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., 103 So. 3d 200 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)). We disagree that Boecher is applicable and, accordingly, disagree with the reasoning of these decisions. In Boecher, we corn sidered whether a party could obtain discovery from the opposing party regarding the extent of that p…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• Carnival Corp. v. Jimenez, 112 So. 3d 513 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)
  …court got this part of the analysis right. Carnival could properly attack the credibility of Dr. Smith by showing that he was biased in favor of Ms. Jimenez. See § 90.608(2), Fla. Stat. (2011); Steinger, Iscoe & Greene, P.A. v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., 103 So. 3d 200 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). Undeniably, the existence of the letter of protection gave Dr. Smith a financial interest in the outcome of Ms. Jimenez’s personal injury action. Carnival could properly present evidence of that interest at trial and argue to th…
• Lytal v. Malay, 133 So. 3d 1178 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)
  …ded “nebulous testimony” in connection with the number of his patients who were represented by the law firm. Under these circumstances, the law firm is an appropriate source of this information. Steinger, Iscoe & Greene, P.A. v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., 103 So. 3d 200, 206 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). The trial court did not depart from the essential requirements of law. Petition Denied. TAYLOR and LEVINE, JJ., concur.…