B.S., FATHER OF M.A.S., MINOR CHILD
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The trial court's judgment regarding the Department of Children and Families matter was proper and affirmed.
B.S., the father of minor child M.A.S., appealed a decision by the Circuit Court for Okaloosa County concerning the Department of Children and Familie…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________ No. 1D17-4119 _____________________________ B.S., Father of M.A.S., Minor Child,
Appellant,
v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Appellee.
___________________________ On appeal from the Circuit Court for Okaloosa County. Mary Polson, Judge.
January 2, 2018 PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. WETHERELL, ROWE, and JAY, JJ., concur.
_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Joseph Bucheck Constr. Corp. v. W.E. Music, 420 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)…v. Warner, 105 Fla. 245, 141 So. 124, 127 (1932); 23 Fla.Jur. Notice & Notices § 4 (1959). It is a fiction that is imputed by the law primarily for the [*413] promotion of sound policy. 66 C.J.S. Notice § 6 (1950); Schoedel v. State Bank of Newburg, 245 Wis. 74, 13 N.W. 2d 534, 535 (1944). It is not actual knowledge of a fact. 66 C.J.S. Notice § 6 n. 90(2) (1950). Constructive notice would merely impute knowledge of the lien. It would not impute knowledge of the facts giving rise to the lien or even put on…
-
Phelan v. Middle States OIL Corp., 220 F.2d 593 (2d Cir. 1955)…See. 5 of the Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act). . The reference was to the receivership judge, not to Judge Smith. . That “constructive” knowledge is a fiction, and not to be equated with actual knowledge, see Schoedel v. State Bank of Newburg, 245 Wis. 74, 76,13 N.W. 2d 534, 152 A.L.R. 459; cf. Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 70 S.Ct. 652, 94 L.Ed. 865; City of New York v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co., 344 U.S. 293, 73 S.Ct. 299, 97 L.Ed. 333; McDonald v. Mabee, 243 U.S. 90,…
-
In re New York v. New York, 197 F.2d 428 (2d Cir. 1952)…ilando v. Perrone, 2 Cir., 157 F. 2d 1002, 1004; In re Devereaux, 2 Cir., 76 F. 2d 522. Cf. Prudence Bonds Corporation v. City Bank Farmers Trust Co., 2 Cir., 186 F. 2d 525. I see no such circumstances here. . See Schoedel v. State Bank of Newburg, 245 Wis. 74, 76, 13 N.W. 2d 534, 535, 152 A.L.R. 459. “At the outset, attention should be called to the fact that constructive notice is in point of literal fact neither notice nor knowledge. * * * The term ‘constructive’ is the mere trademark of a fiction.” .…
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