GOODWILL INDUSTRIES OF SOUTH FLORIDA, INC., APPELLANT,

v.

NORTHEASTERN FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PENNSYLVANIA, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By (18 total)

• Duba v. State, 446 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)
  …g a projectile that could do bodily harm. Because that issue was a question for the jury to decide as a matter of fact, we hold the trial court erred and reverse the de [*1169] fendant’s conviction of the aggravated assault charge. M.R.R. v. State, 411 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), and other cases hold that a firearm is a deadly weapon as a matter of law for purposes of the aggravated assault statute, regardless of whether it is loaded or capable of firing and expelling a projectile. As explained in Bass v.…
• Shelby v. State, 541 So. 2d 1219 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)
  …nal element of the display of that weapon. [*1221] There appear to be no cases in Florida interpreting the necessary elements of proof for “threatening to use a deadly weapon.” (Here, a gun, by definition of law, is a deadly weapon. M.R.R. v. State, 411 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).) More particularly, no cases have addressed the issue of whether a threat to use a deadly weapon can be accomplished by words alone when the weapon is unseen and never discovered. We conclude, however, that such a threat with an…
• Watson v. State, 437 So. 2d 702 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)
  …State’s contention because it sentenced appellants Barzaga and Canton to the three year minimum mandatory sentence required by section 775.087. This was an incorrect application of the law and we therefore reverse on this issue. In M.R.R. v. State, 411 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), this court said that it is the State’s burden to prove that a starter gun could expel a projectile by the action of an explosive, or that it could be readily converted to do so. The court noted that Florida courts look to the nat…

Authorities Cited

• Am. Home Assurance Co. v. Keller Indus., Inc., 347 So. 2d 767 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)