FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION AUTHORIZED TO DO BUSINESS IN FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
FIRST TITLE SERVICE COMPANY OF THE FLORIDA KEYS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Mandate cases and more on FLexlaw
WHEREAS, the judgment of this court was entered on December 21, 1982 (423 So. 2d 600) affirming the judgment of the Circuit Court of Dade County, Florida, in the above styled cause; and
WHEREAS, on review of this court’s judgment, by certiorari, the Supreme Court of Florida, by its opinion and judgment filed June 28, 1984, 457 So. 2d 467, and mandate now lodged in this court, quashed this court’s judgment;
NOW, THEREFORE, It is Ordered that the mandate of this court heretofore issued in this cause on January 6, 1983 is withdrawn, the judgment of this court in this cause filed June 28, 1983 is vacated, the said opinion and judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida is herewith made the opinion and judgment of this court, and the cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with said opinion. Costs allowed shall be taxed in the trial court (Rule 9.400 Florida Appellate Rules).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Riley v. State, 511 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 1987)…ted petitioner’s motion to suppress the evidence on the ground that petitioner manifested a reasonable expectation of privacy from aerial surveillance. On appeal, the Second District reversed on the authority of its own decision in Randall v. State, 458 So. 2d 822 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984),3 and certified the issue to this Court. Petitioner, relying on Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967), contends that the aerial surveillance of his greenhouse was a search in violation of his ri…
-
Bainter v. State, 135 So. 3d 517 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014)…have the right to drive up there, regardless if they walked, drove, drove within 25 feet, 50 to 75 feet or 30 yards away or walked up, they had the right to be there, the defendant’s motion to suppress is denied. We disagree. In Randall v. State, 458 So. 2d 822 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984), the Second District explained: The fourth amendment guarantees “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” As the United States Supreme Cour…
-
State v. Riley, 476 So. 2d 1354 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)…. State, 417 So. 2d 1024, (Fla. 2nd DCA 1982) and Murphy v. State, 413 So. 2d 1268, (1 DCA, Fla.1982), all of which involved aerial viewings of open fields. The Court further notes that this case is distinguishable from Randall v. State, 9 FLW 2354 [458 So. 2d 822], November 16, 1984, in that the Defendant herein has manifested a reasonable expectation of privacy from aerial surveillance. The Court does not reach the question of whether circling over the subject property at an altitude of 400 feet or less is…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- First Am. Title Ins. Co., Inc. v. First Title Serv. Co. OF THE Fla. Keys Inc., 457 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 1984)
- First Am. Title Ins. Co., Inc. v. First Title Serv. Co. OF the Fla. Keys, Inc., 423 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)