CECILLE LAMOUTTE
v.
AGUEYBANA RUIZ PANEQUE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Forum Non Conveniens cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See DeStefanis v. Tan, 231 So. 3d 537, 539 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (“An order denying a motion to dismiss based on forum non conveniens is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.”); Eggers v. Eggers, 776 So. 2d 1096, 1098 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (“Under the forum non conveniens statute, a plaintiff’s forum selection is presumptively correct and the burden is on the defendant to show either substantial inconvenience or that undue expense requires change for the convenience of the parties or witnesses. This court has instructed that when a forum non conveniens challenge is raised, it is incumbent upon the parties to submit affidavits or other evidence that will shed necessary light on the issue of the convenience of the parties and witnesses and the interest of justice.”) (citations omitted).
2
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Heilman v. United States, 406 F.2d 1011 (7th Cir. 1969)…ior to petitioner’s interrogation, jealously guarded the right of an accused to be informed of the nature of the offenses with which he is charged, holding inadmissible statements obtained in the absence of such warnings. See United States v. Davis, 8 USCMA 196, 24 CMR 6 (1957). But the requirement is 'a practical one, intended to apprise the accused of the transaction under investigation and the seriousness of his involvement therein. The warning need not be technically precise so long as this prophylacti…
Authorities Cited
- Destefanis v. HAN Ming TAN, 231 So. 3d 537 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)