SAMUEL D. WASHINGTON, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
SAMUEL D. WASHINGTON, APPELLANT,
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
296 So. 2d 9
Florida Supreme Court (1974)
Negative Treatment
Cited by 134 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. State v. Digman, 294 So. 2d 325 (Fla.1974). See also: Rojas v. State, 288 So. 2d 234 (Fla.1973); Dykman v. State, 294 So. 2d 633 (Fla.1973); and Seay v. State, Silva v. State, 286 So. 2d 532 (Fla.1973).
ADKINS, C. J., and ROBERTS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur. ERVIN, j., dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (127 total)
-
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Keely Kaklamanos, 843 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 2003)…ed in vehicular accidents would receive some economic aid in meeting medical expenses and the like, in order not to drive them into dire financial circumstances with the possibility of swelling the public relief rolls. Lasky v. State Farm Ins. Co., 296 So. 2d 9, 16 (Fla.1974). The statutory provision at issue in the instant case is section 627.736(4), which describes when personal injury protection (PIP) benefits are due and the method by which notice must be given. The intent of this provision is to prom…
-
Smith v. Dep't OF Ins., 507 So. 2d 1080 (Fla. 1987)…t, or (2) legislative showing of overpowering public necessity for the abolishment of the right and no alternative method of meeting such public necessity. Appellees urge that Kluger is distinguishable in light of Lasky v. State Farm Insurance Co., 296 So. 2d 9 (Fla.1974), and Chapman v. Dillon, 415 So. 2d 12 (Fla.1982). In Lasky, we upheld a statutory provision which denied recovery for pain and suffering and similar intangible items of damages unless the plaintiff was able to meet a $1,000 medical expens…
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Nichols, 932 So. 2d 1067 (Fla. 2006)…the personal injury portion of the PIP statute, which does make insurance compulsory, “provides a reasonable alternative to the traditional action in tort” and therefore complies with the access-to-courts provision. See Lasky v. State Farm Ins. Co., 296 So. 2d 9, 14 (Fla.1974). We reasoned that, under the PIP system, “[i]n exchange for his previous right to damages for pain and suffering ... with recovery limited to those situations where he can prove that the other party was at fault, the injured party is…1 / 3
Previewing 3 of 127 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Seay v. State, 286 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 1973)
- Eugenio Herberto Rojas v. State, 288 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 1973)
- Dykman v. State, 294 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 1973)
- State v. Digman, 294 So. 2d 325 (Fla. 1974)