DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, APPELLANT,
v.
CYNTHIA PETERMAN, APPELLEE
PER CURIAM.
The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) has appealed an order of the trial court finding that HRS had no standing to represent Richard Shafer in a petition for modification to establish the child support obligation of his former wife. The trial court dismissed the petition for failure to state a cause of action because Shafer did not receive state benefits. We reverse.
The trial court erred in finding that HRS had no standing, see HRS v. Harris, 575 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), and in dismissing the petition based on that finding. The order appealed is therefore reversed, and the case remanded for further proceedings on the petition for modification.
JOANOS, C.J., and SMITH and MINER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Charles v. State, 79 So. 3d 233 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)…e three officers] were not eyewitnesses to the crime, they did not have any special familiarity with Ruffin, and they were not qualified as any type of experts in identification. Id. (footnote omitted) (citation omitted); see also Edwards v. State, 583 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (reversing when officer who employed an informant to make controlled, videotaped buy from appellant, but who did not witness buy firsthand, testified “he recognized appellant as the person shown on the tape making the sale to” in…
-
Proctor v. State, 97 So. 3d 313 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012)…stimony that defendant was person depicted in surveillance video invaded province of jury; detective was not eyewitness, had no special familiarity with defendant, and was not otherwise qualified as expert in video identification); Edwards v. State, 583 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (reversing when officer, who employed informant to make controlled videotaped buy from appellant, but who did not witness buy firsthand, testified “he recognized appellant as the person shown on the tape making the sale to” infor…
-
Alcantar v. State, 987 So. 2d 822 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)…t person’s identity might have been relevant to explain how he could identify the seller by name. When properly broached, that type of testimony may have relevancy that is not outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice. See, e.g., Edwards v. State, 583 So. 2d 740, 741 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Here, however, the second officer had no contact with Mr. Alcantar during the transaction. The emphasis on his many years of law enforcement experience in the Immokalee community, his prior contact with Mr. Alcantar for “ye…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Zackie G. Harris, 575 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)