STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
JOHN EDWARD RAPP, RESPONDENT
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.
Florida Supreme Court dismissed a certiorari petition after determining that the District Court's decision was distinguishable from Green v. State because the evidence did not show the defendant intended his assumed-name signature to be taken as another person's genuine signature.
The writ of certiorari was improvidently issued because the District Court's decision was distinguishable from Green v. State on its evidentiary basis.
[1] A signature made in an assumed name does not constitute forgery under Florida law unless there is evidence the defendant intended the assumed-name signature to be taken a…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRespondent Rapp used an assumed name and signed documents with that assumed name. The District Court found no evidence that Rapp intended the assumed-…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Probable Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
The petition for writ of certiorari reflected probable jurisdiction in this Court to review the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, reported at 274 So.2d 18, based upon conflict between that decision and Green v. State, 76 So.2d 645 (Fla.1954). We issued the writ and have heard oral argument of the parties. After argument and upon further consideration of the matter, we have determined that the writ was improvidently issued.
The decisions are distinguishable in that the Green holding relied upon evidence tending to show that the defendant used assumed names intending that the signatures would be taken as the genuine signatures of other people. In the case sub judice, the District Court found that there was no evidence introduced by the State to show that respondent intended the signature of his assumed name to be taken as the genuine signature of another person. We have determined that the distinguishing evidentiary bases for these decisions dictate that this Court not entertain jurisdiction based upon conflict between them. Therefore, the writ is hereby discharged and the petition for writ of certiorari is dismissed.
It is so ordered.
CARLTON, C. J., and ERVIN, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., concur.
ROBERTS, J., dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
G & S Packing Co. & Fla. Farm Bureau Ins. Co. v. Driggers, 382 So. 2d 446 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)…hould award a fee for the effort of claimant’s attorney in securing this benefit. Osteen v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., IRC Order 2-3383 (March 24, 1978), cert, denied, 367 So. 2d 1123 (Fla.1979); Thomas v. Lindsiey Lumber, 8 FCR 52 (1973), cert, denied, 281 So. 2d 193 (1973). Although the deputy commissioner merely found entitlement to a fee, without an award of any specific amount, the effect of his findings is to predicate the fee only upon the attorney’s services regarding the “change of physician” issue. Cla…
-
State v. Escobedo, 404 So. 2d 760 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…f forgery under the above statute. First, there must be “ ‘the making of a writing which falsely purports to be the writing of another.’ ” Green v. State, 76 So. 2d at 647; see also Rapp v. State, 274 So. 2d 18, 19 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. discharged, 281 So. 2d 193 (Fla.1973); Davis v. State, 111 So. 2d 459, 461 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959). Central to this element is that the writing in its entirety must falsely purport to be the genuine writing of a third person — someone other than the accused— whether that third pe…
-
State v. Charles, 341 So. 2d 539 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)…ports to be the writing of another, with intent to defraud. The crime may exist even though the name is fictitious when it is shown that the fictitious name was used with an intent to defraud. Green v. State, 76 So. 2d 645 (Fla.1954); State v. Rapp, 281 So. 2d 193 (Fla.1973). Clearly, an endorsement supplied to a check drawn on a bank may constitute forgery. Smith v. State, 59 So. 2d 625 (Fla.1952); Hazen v. Mayo, 90 So. 2d 123 (Fla.1956). Where the name actually signed resembles a true name, the texts indic…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Green v. State, 76 So. 2d 645 (Fla. 1954)
- Rapp v. State, 274 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)