ALDO REMO, APPELLANT,

v.

GENERIX DRUG CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• State v. Guyton, 445 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
  ….P., which might arguably have tolled speedy trial, were not triggered. Further, during the applicable 180 day “speedy trial” period, the defense never sought a continuance and was never unavailable for trial. The State relies upon Harley v. State, 412 So. 2d 954 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Zirkle v. State, 410 So. 2d 948 (Fla..3d DCA 1982); and Isley v. State, 354 So. 2d 457 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). However, these cases are not applicable as they presented delays in proceedings of a type clearly distinct from the fact…
• Franklin v. State, 473 So. 2d 763 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
  …established that one is not “continuously available” for trial within the meaning of Rule 3.191(e), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, while his competency is being ascertained. Isley v. State, 354 So. 2d 457 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Harley v. State, 412 So. 2d 954 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). We reject Owens’ contention that these cases are not longer dispositive because when they were decided the rule required “continuous” availability, whereas the rule was amended effective January 1, 1981, and Rule 3.191(e) no lon…

Authorities Cited

• Padgett v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n OF Santa Rosa Cnty., 378 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)