JOHNNIE THOMAS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
JOHNNIE THOMAS, APPELLANT,
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
355 So. 2d 847
Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1978)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 6 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
The trial court properly denied the appellant’s motion for judgment of acquittal made at the close of all the evidence. We have examined the remaining point on appeal and find it to be without merit. However, the cause is remanded to the trial court for entry of a judgment and sentence for the offense of aggravated battery in accordance with the verdict of the jury. The defendant need not be present for this purpose.
McCORD, C. J., and BOYER and MELVIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bradley v. Health Coal., Inc., 687 So. 2d 329 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…oyee to sell unfit products, or to alter invoices so as to defraud customers, and the employee was forced to resign for refusing to do so, then the employer would have unclean hands and would not be entitled to an injunction. See Pilafian v. Cherry, 355 So. 2d 847, 849 (Fla. 3d DCA), (“One who seeks the aid of equity must do so with clean hands.”) (citation omitted), cert. denied, 361 So. 2d 834 (Fla.1978); see also Gupton v. Village Key & Saw Shop, 656 So. 2d at 478; Cordis Corp. v. Prooslin, 482 So. 2d at 4…
-
Momcilo Velickovich and Zorica Velickovich v. Ricci, 391 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)…of an injunction. The decisional law is to the contrary, and we find no demonstration of reversible error or any abuse of discretion. Injunctive relief is a proper means of enforcing a restrictive covenant affecting real estate. Pilafian v. Cherry, 355 So. 2d 847 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), cert. denied 361 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 1978); Thompson v. Squibb, 183 So. 2d 30 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966), and Coffman v. James, 177 So. 2d 25 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965). Because of the unique nature of each piece of real property, violations of re…
-
Kirschner v. Baldwin, 988 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)…ionally violated the Declaration’s restrictions. A trial court may properly decline to order the removal of an encroachment when it would be inequitable to do so. See, e.g., Brewer v. Hibbard, 424 So. 2d 988 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Pilafian v. Cherry, 355 So. 2d 847 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). A primary factor to be considered in determining whether a mandatory injunction should be entered is whether the defendant’s violation of a restrictive covenant was intentional and willful. Daniel v. May, 143 So. 2d 536 (Fla. 2d…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence