CHARLES HUGGINS, SR., THOMAS HUGGINS, AND CHARLES HUGGINS, JR., APPELLANTS,
v.
BPCA CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., APPELLEE
CHARLES HUGGINS, SR., THOMAS HUGGINS, AND CHARLES HUGGINS, JR., APPELLANTS,
BPCA CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., APPELLEE
765 So. 2d 85
Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (2000)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
We grant appellants’ motion for rehearing. Appellants have filed a certified copy of the order denying motion for rehearing, which demonstrates that the order was rendered on December 13, 1999. The notice of appeal was therefore timely filed. We withdraw our previous order dismissing the appeal.
KLEIN, SHAHOOD, and GROSS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Perrot v. State, 795 So. 2d 1015 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…neffective for failing to object or move for a mistrial when he learned that prosecutors met with witnesses, including the victim, to discuss the case after defense counsel had invoked the rule sequestering witnesses. Previously, in Perrot v. State, 765 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000), we reversed and remanded this case with specific directions to the trial court to attach record evidence conclusively refuting Perrot’s claims or to hold an evidentiary hearing. On remand, the trial court again summarily denied P…
-
Edwards v. State, 944 So. 2d 1062 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…on and that his in-court identification of Edwards was the product of a recent fabrication stemming from those discussions. We find that his claim is legally sufficient. Steinhorst v. State, 412 So. 2d 332 (Fla.1982); see generally Perrot v. State, 765 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). The record reveals that counsel moved for a mistrial based on the alleged violation, but did not offer testimony from the relevant witnesses. On direct appeal, Edwards challenged the denial of the motion for mistrial. The case w…