THEO MILLER, APPELLANT,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By (11 total)

• Nolan Hurt and Florence Hurt v. Leatherby Ins. Co., 380 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 1980)
  …h authorized the joinder of insurance companies. Under this theory, the all-inclusive language was routinely included in printed releases as “boilerplate”, and may not reflect [*434] the intent of the parties. See Quarterman v. City of Jacksonville, 347 So. 2d 1036, 1039 (Fla.1st DCA 1977). We agree with the petitioner. The common law rule was abolished in part to avoid imposing the harsh consequences of a general release upon often unsuspecting plaintiffs. McKenna v. Austin, 77 U.S.App.D.C. 228, 134 F. 2d 65…
• Mazzoni Farms, Inc. v. E.I. DuPONT DE Nemours & Co., 761 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 2000)
  …e time of execution of the release, but unknown to the parties; or rather, whether that modifying language limits the release to causes of action fully accrued at the time of execution. Id. Likewise, the court in Quarterman v. City of Jacksonville, 347 So. 2d 1036 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), narrowly interpreted seemingly broad language in a release. The Quarterman release discharged the parties identified in the release and “any and all other persons ... who might be liable of and from any and all actions.” Id. at…
• THE Florida BAR v. Frederick, 756 So. 2d 79 (Fla. 2000)
  …anger the rule does not apply.” Roof v. Chattanooga Wood Split Pulley Co., 36 Fla. 284, 295, 18 So. 597, 599 (1895) (emphasis added); accord Palmer v. R.S. Evans, Jacksonville, Inc., 81 So. 2d 635, 637 (Fla.1955); Quarterman v. City of Jacksonville, 347 So. 2d 1036, 1038 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); see generally 24 Fla. Jur.2d Evidence and Witnesses § 446 (1995). As explained by one noted commentator: The theory of the [parol evidence] rule is that the parties have determined that a particular document shall be made…