RICHARD WATKINS, APPELLANT,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• The Travelers Ins. Co. v. Spencer, 397 So. 2d 358 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)
  …ee that estoppel and waiver are viable defenses to this type, of action. The doctrines of estoppel and waiver do not in general apply to transactions that are forbidden by statute or are contrary to the public policy. Sherba Bros., Inc. v. Campbell, 361 So. 2d 814 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); Confederation Life Association v. Conte, 254 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971); State v. City of Hialeah, 156 So. 2d 675 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963); Montsdoca v. Highlands Bank and Trust Co., 95 So. 666 (Fla.1923). Moreover, an omission suff…
• Dade Cnty. v. Gayer, 388 So. 2d 1292 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
  …Trust Co., 85 Fla. 158, 163, 95 So. 666, 668 (1923), that: “[t]he doctrines of estoppel and waiver do not in general apply in transactions that are forbidden by statute or that are contrary to public policy.” Accord, Sherba Bros., Inc. v. Campbell, 361 So. 2d 814 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); State ex rel. Schwartz v. City of Hialeah, 156 So. 2d 675 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963). Hollywood Beach Hotel Company allows one to invoke the doctrine of estoppel against a municipality in the same manner as it applies to private parties…
• R.I. Hosp. Tr. Bank v. Coastal Winds S., Inc., 528 So. 2d 1257 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)
  …t the defense of estoppel should not be used to bar an attack on transactions contrary to public policy. See Steinhardt v. Rudolph, 422 So. 2d 884 (Fla. 3d DCA [*1259] 1982), rev. denied, 434 So. 2d 889 (Fla.1983). See also Sherba Bros. v. Campbell, 361 So. 2d 814 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); Wash Bowl Vending Co. v. No. 3 Condominium Association, Village Green, Inc., 485 So. 2d 1307 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 492 So. 2d 1336 (Fla.1986). However, we conclude that the trial court did err in reducing the term of the…