JESUS MELENDEZ, APPELLANT,
v.
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY TRANSIT, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 2017-04-26
No. 3D16-1554
Before SUAREZ, C.J., and SALTER and FERNANDEZ, JJ.
217 So. 3d 1138 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2017) Positive Treatment
Cited by 1 case

Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. Artigas v. Allstate Ins. Co., 541 So.2d 739, 740 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Miami Transit Co. v. Ford, 159 So.2d 261, 262 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964); Peterson v. Cent. Fla. Reg’l Transp., 769 So.2d 418 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000).


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Silberman v. Miami Dade Transit, 927 F.3d 1123 (11th Cir. 2019)
    …rdance with the procedures established by the County Manager pursuant to Section 2-148.” Adding to the intrigue, MDT has been a named defendant in two recent state-court decisions, seemingly without incident. See Melendez v. Miami-Dade Cty. Transit, 217 So. 3d 1138 (Fla. 3d Dist. Ct. App. 2017); McFarlane v. Miami-Dade Transit Auth., 215 So. 3d 658 (Fla. 1st Dist. Ct. App. 2017). Happily, we needn't hazard an Erie guess about whether MDT is sui juris because Silberman doesn't challenge the district court's det…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw