DONOHUE ET AL.

v.

VILLAGE OF FOX POINT; BOURGEOIS V. MERCANTILE NATIONAL BANK OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA; CITY OF DALLAS, TEXAS, V. TUBBS MANUFACTURING CO., INC., ET AL.; SOBELL V. UNITED STATES; STATE BOARD OF NATUROPATHIC EXAMINERS ET AL. V. WILSON, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET AL.; MERCHANTS NATIONAL BANK & TRUST CO. OF INDIANAPOLIS V. UNITED STATES ET AL.; OHIO FARMERS INSURANCE CO. ET AL. V. LANTZ ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• Cochran v. State, 547 So. 2d 928 (Fla. 1989)
  …any of these criteria. Nor have I found any authority that supports a finding of premeditation from the circumstances of a killing by a single shot to the abdomen resulting from a struggle. Cf. Meade v. State, 96 So. 2d 776 (Fla.1957), cert. denied, 355 U.S. 920, 78 S.Ct. 351, 2 L.Ed.2d 279 (1958). The state’s circumstantial evidence in this case falls far short of that found sufficient to raise a jury question in our prior cases. See Huff v. State, 495 So. 2d 145 (Fla. 1986) (all of the evidence adduced at…
• Mills v. State, 407 So. 2d 218 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
  …ld consigning it to almost certain death is a felony murder, not an abandonment of the kidnapping. LaMarca v. People, 3 N.Y.2d 452, 165 N.Y.S.2d 753, 144 N.E. 2d 420, remittitur amended, 3 N.Y.2d 933, 167 N.Y.S.2d 955, 145 N.E. 2d 892, cert. denied, 355 U.S. 920, 78 S.Ct. 351, 2 L.Ed.2d 279 (1957). . Some confusion has apparently arisen from the use of language which mixes presence at the commission of the felony with presence at the killing. See, e.g., Hite v. State, supra, at 772 (where the court stated…
• Harriel v. State, 508 So. 2d 509 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)
  …the assessment of additional court costs pursuant to section 27.3455(1), Florida Statutes (1985). Upon review, we find that the trial court properly denied the motion for mistrial pursuant to Meade v. State, 96 So. 2d 776 (Fla.1957), cert. denied, 355 U.S. 920, 78 S.Ct. 351, 2 L.Ed.2d 279 (1958); Cooper v. State, 261 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972); State v. Murray, 443 So. 2d 955 (Fla.1984); and Kothman v. State, 442 So. 2d 357 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). We further find no error in allowing the jury to read a t…