MARJORIE FASHIONS AND NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, PETITIONERS,

v.

MILDRED A. BLUH AND THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, RESPONDENTS

Citator

Cited By

• Gilford v. State, 487 So. 2d 53 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
  …e v. State, 479 So. 2d 791 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). However, the controlling statute is that which is in effect at the time of the commission of the crime, rather than at the time of sentencing. Ellis v. State, 298 So. 2d 527 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. denied, 298 So. 2d 411 (Fla.1974). In the instant case, appellant committed the crime before the effective date of the amendment to section 775.089, which was October 1, 1984. Chapter 84-363, section 17, Laws of Florida. Therefore, section 775.089, Florida Statutes (1983…
• Gibbons v. State, 479 So. 2d 284 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
  …75.-089, October 1, 1984. Ch. 84-363, § 17, Laws of Fla. The statute in effect at the time of the commission of the crime, rather than at the time of sentencing, is the controlling statute. Ellis v. State, 298 So. 2d 527 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. denied, 298 So. 2d 411 (Fla.1974). Therefore, the authority for requiring appellant to make restitution was derived from section 775.089, Florida Statutes (1983), which has been interpreted to require notice and an opportunity to be heard before restitution may be imposed…
• Jackson v. State, 599 So. 2d 752 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)
  …; Pettigrew v. State, 295 So. 2d 672 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. dismissed, 300 So. 2d 21 (Fla.1974); Hampton v. State, 336 So. 2d 378 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 339 So. 2d 1169 (Fla.1976); Ellis v. State, 298 So. 2d 527 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. dismissed, 298 So. 2d 411 (Fla.1974). For instance, in Hampton, the single transaction rule did not preclude the trial court from sentencing the defendant for both assault with the intent to commit robbery and assault with the intent to commit second degree murder, even thou…