ARTHUR SMITH, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
This case concerns whether the sale of gold Krugerrands is subject to Florida sales tax, with the appellant arguing they are legal tender and thus not taxable tangible property.
The appellate court is reviewing the trial court's decision that the sale of gold Krugerrands is taxable as tangible property under Florida sales tax law.
Arthur Smith sought a declaratory judgment that the sale of gold Krugerrands was not subject to Florida sales tax, arguing they were legal tender. The…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner, pursuant to Fla.R.App.P. 9.140(g) having taken this appeal from the summary denial of his motion for post conviction relief under Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850 and this court having considered the record presented and having further determined that it conclusively appears therefrom that petitioner is entitled to no relief, the denial of this motion is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Swafford v. State, 533 So. 2d 270 (Fla. 1988)…e only gave a description. This testimony does not meet the definition of “identification” as used in subsection 90.801(2)(c). See, e.g., State v. Freber, 366 So. 2d 426 (Fla.1978); Brown v. State, 413 So. 2d 414 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Henry v. State, 383 So. 2d 320 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Swafford's remaining arguments pertain to the death sentence. First, he contends that the court erred in finding the murder to have been “committed for the purpose of avoiding or preventing a lawful arrest.” § 921.141(5)(e), Fl…
-
Stanford v. State, 576 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)…countless repetitions by a witness to others, regardless of time and place, of the witnesses’ belief as to the guilty party, a result we do not believe intended by the drafters of the rule. Case law supports this interpretation.2 In Henry v. State, 383 So. 2d 320 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980), a 12 year-old sexual battery victim saw the defendant on the street 2 months after the attack and identified him to her father as the man who attacked her. The victim’s father was permitted to testify over objection regarding hi…