D.C.K. AND C.M.K., BY AND THROUGH THEIR PARENTS, ETC., APPELLANTS,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES, APPELLEE
D.C.K. AND C.M.K., BY AND THROUGH THEIR PARENTS, ETC., APPELLANTS,
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES, APPELLEE
826 So. 2d 476
Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (2002)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
Having carefully considered the parties’ arguments and reviewed the record, we are unable to say that the trial court abused its discretion. Given the thoughtful analysis of the issues in the trial court’s final order, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
MINER, KAHN and WEBSTER, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. McCORMICK, 868 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 2004)…), Fla. Const. For the reasons expressed in our opinion in Florida Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Critchfield, 842 So. 2d 782 (Fla.2003), we summarily affirm the decision of the Fifth District Court of Appeal in McCormick v. State, 826 So. 2d 476 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). It is so ordered. ANSTEAD, C.J., and WELLS, PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANTERO, and BELL, JJ., concur.…
-
Sorrell v. State, 855 So. 2d 1253 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…e that chapter 98-223 violates the single subject rule.” Critchfield, 842 So. 2d at 786. Because chapter 98-223, the statute creating section 322.341, is unconstitutional, appellant cannot be convicted of that [*1256] crime. See McCormick v. State, 826 So. 2d 476, 477 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). The next question is what happens to this case once section 322.341 is declared unconstitutional, rendering that count of the information a non-existent crime. At the non-jury trial, the state did not request the trial jud…