WINSTON S. HALL, AS THE DULY APPOINTED AND ACTING GUARDIAN OF THE PROPERTY OF WINSTON SHELLEY HALL, JR., AND GREGORY HALL, MINORS, APPELLANT,
v.
THE HERTZ CORPORATION, A CORPORATION AUTHORIZED TO DO BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA, WILLIAM K. CASH AND CHARLES H. DENNY, III, APPELLEES
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 court considered consolidated cases where minors were adjudicated delinquent and appealed, focusing on the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The court held that the standard of proof for juvenile delinquency adjudications, whether based on direct or circumstantial evidence, is proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and circumstantial evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis except guilt.
In the case of M.J.B., the minor appellant was adjudicated delinquent for possession of marijuana found in a car where he was a passenger. The evidenc…
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.
Affirmed. See Hopkins v. Lockheed Aircraft Corporation, 201 So.2d 743 (Fla.1967), and Messinger v. Tom, 203 So.2d 357 (Fla.App.2d 1967).
RAWLS, Acting C. J., WIGGINTON, J., and GOODFRIEND, SAM, Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The City OF Apopka v. Orange Cnty., 299 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)…f the proposed airport would affect the public and base its granting or denial of the special exception on those findings. Cf. Laney v. Holbrook, 150 Fla. 622, 8 So. 2d 465, 146 A.L.R. 202 (1942); Veasey v. Board of Public Instruction, Fla.App.1971, 247 So. 2d 80. The evidence in opposition to the request for exception was in the main laymen’s opinions unsubstantiated by any competent facts. Witnesses were not sworn and cross examination was specifically prohibited. Although the Orange County Zoning Act req…
-
Lewis v. Dep't OF Prof'l Reg., 410 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)…zum, 345 So. 2d 1106 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). Further, the critical reason for requiring an administrative agency to state their conclusions and orders with specificity is to facilitate judicial review. Veasey v. Board of Instruction, Palm Beach County, 247 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971). Lewis also argues that the Board failed to observe section 120.59(l)(b), Florida Statutes (1979), which reads in significant part: (1) The final order in a proceeding which affects substantial interests shall be in writing or…
-
Fla. Power & Light Co. v. State, 693 So. 2d 1025 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)…administrative agency to state their conclusions and orders with specificity is to facilitate judicial review.” Lewis v. Florida Dep’t of Professional Regulation, 410 So. 2d 593, 594 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982), citing Veasey v. Board of Public Instruction, 247 So. 2d 80, 81 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971). We therefore vacate the Siting Board’s order and remand for entry of an order which comports with the requirements of Florida’s Administrative Procedure Act. See Bekiempis v. Dep’t of Professional Regulation, 421 So. 2d 693,…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hopkins v. Lockheed Aircraft Corp., 201 So. 2d 743 (Fla. 1967)
- Messinger v. TOM, 203 So. 2d 357 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)