JOSEPH BETSEY AND DOROTHY BETSEY, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
RICHARD L. LITT, M. D., APPELLEE
JOSEPH BETSEY AND DOROTHY BETSEY, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
RICHARD L. LITT, M. D., APPELLEE
405 So. 2d 491
Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1981)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 3 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. Carter v. DeCarion, 400 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Tosar v. Sladek, 393 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); F. M. C. Corp. v. Chatman, 368 So. 2d 1307 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied, 379 So. 2d 203 (Fla.1979); Industrial Trucks of Florida, Inc. v. Gonzalez, 351 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Fla. R.Civ.P. 1.420(e).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Maximo Jimenez, 428 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…idential informant, see Standards for Criminal Justice Standard 11-2.6 (2d ed. 1980), and related eommen-tary, we have previously held that such a hearing is a necessary condition precedent to the ultimate sanction of dismissal, see State v. Nelson, 405 So. 2d 491 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). We continue to adhere to that view. For the foregoing reasons the order of dismissal is reversed and this cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with the views expressed herein. . The balancing test approved in…
-
State v. Villar, 554 So. 2d 576 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…e informer’s potential value as a witness, an in camera hearing on the nature of the informer’s probable testimony is required, State v. Martin, 522 So. 2d 872 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); State v. Jimenez, 428 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); State v. Nelson, 405 So. 2d 491 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), once a specific color-able defense is alleged. State v. Acosta, 439 So. 2d at 1026; State v. Mesa, 395 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). After that hearing, the trial court may assess the ultimate sanction of dismissal upon it. Stat…
-
State v. Martin, 522 So. 2d 872 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…. Tenorio-Angel, 756 F. 2d 1505, 1510 (11th Cir.1985). We have previously held that an in-camera hearing is a necessary condition precedent to the ultimate sanction of dismissal. State v. Jimenez, 428 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); State v. Nelson, 405 So. 2d 491 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). In the instant case, although the confidential informant’s name is already known to at least one of the defendants, the need for a hearing in camera is not negated. Martin’s brutal assault on the confidential informant had the se…
Authorities Cited
- F. M. C. Corp. v. Chatman, 368 So. 2d 1307 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)
- State v. Brannon, 351 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Aurora Pacheco and Ubaldo Pacheco v. Ramos, 351 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Moore v. Moore, 393 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Carter v. DeCARION, 400 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)