THE CITY OF MIAMI, THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, AND DAVID C. LEAHY, SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS OF DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, APPELLANTS,

v.

WELLINGTON ROLLE AND ALCIDES I. DE LOS REYES, APPELLEES

Citator

Cited By

• State v. Rabin, 495 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
  …d legal advice which might not have been made absent the privilege’’); § 90.502(l)(c)l, (2). . The state’s contention that Diaz’s statements are not work product is without merit. For this proposition, the state relies primarily on Balboa v. State, 446 So. 2d 1134 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), in which this court held that tape-recorded statements of two state witnesses were not privileged from discovery. In Balboa, the court made the following statement: "Thus, opinions, theories, or conclusions of attorneys are privi…
• R.R. v. State, 476 So. 2d 218 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
  …Cooper v. State, 377 So. 2d 1153 (Fla.1979); Wilcox v. State, 367 So. 2d 1020 (Fla.1979); Zeigler v. State, 402 So. 2d 365 (Fla.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1035, 102 S.Ct. 1739, 72 L.Ed.2d 153 (1982). As we have in the past, e.g., Balboa v. State, 446 So. 2d 1134 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), we apply this rule and reverse the order of [*220] delinquency for a new adjudicatory hearing. Because we are most disquieted by the rule of automatic Richardson reversibility7 — which, for reasons which we frankly do not unders…
• Paulino Nunez v. City OF Hialeah & David Leahy, 477 So. 2d 655 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
  …d City of Hialeah charter amendment, see State ex rel. Landis v. Tedder, 106 Fla. 140, 143 So. 148 (1932); City of Miami Beach v. Herman, 346 So. 2d 122 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), because, as in the identical and controlling case of City of Miami v. Rolle, 446 So. 2d 1134 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), the city did not comply with the time frame required by § 5.03A of the Dade County Home Rule Charter. No motion for rehearing will be entertained and the mandate will issue forthwith.…