JISKLY ARMINAN, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 2016-04-13
No. 3D16-381
Before ROTHENBERG, LAGOA and SALTER, JJ.
190 So. 3d 662 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2016) Positive Treatment
Cited by 5 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed, with the clarification that the prohibition in the decretal part of the trial court’s denial order, “Defendant is hereby PROHIBITED from filing any further motions without representation by a licensed member of the Florida Bar,” is limited to the case in which that Order was entered, namely State v. Arminan, Case No. F03-9926C, Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit for Miami-Dade County, Florida.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Citigroup Mortg. Loan Tr. v. Scialabba, 238 So. 3d 317 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)
  • Green Tree Servicing, LLC v. Atchison, 230 So. 3d 635 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)
    …C, 155 So. 3d 499, 502 n.2 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (concluding-that an-assignment of mortgage is admissible into evidence as a ver-' bal act irrespective of the business record exception to the hearsay rule); Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co. v. Alaqua Prop., 190 So. 3d 662, 665 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) (holding that a promissory note does not have to qualify as a business record under the business record exception to the hearsay rule and is admissible for its independent legal' significance—to establish the -existence of t…
  • USA v. Gloger, 273 So. 3d 1046 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)

Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw