AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE CO., APPELLANT,
v.
ROSEN BUILDING SUPPLIES, INC., APPELLEE
AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE CO., APPELLANT,
ROSEN BUILDING SUPPLIES, INC., APPELLEE
854 So. 2d 666
Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2003)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 30 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
American Home Assurance Company appeals from a Final Judgment in favor of Rosen Building Supplies, Inc. d/b/a Rosen Materials (“Rosen”). Rosen cross-appeals from the Final Judgment.
Based upon Rosen’s proper confession of error on the main appeal, we reverse the Final Judgment and set aside the Judgment Awarding Fees, Costs and Pre-Judgment Interest. Accordingly, this case is reversed and remanded to the trial court to reduce the Final Judgment by $85,324.13 and for a new determination of attorney’s fees, costs, and pre-judgment interest. We conclude that Rosen’s cross-appeal has no merit and affirm on that issue.
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (15 total)
-
Boca Burger, Inc. v. Forum, 912 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 2005)…(Fla. 1st DCA 2003); Burton v. Burton, 851 So. 2d 861 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); Yorke v. Yorke, 848 So. 2d 1215 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); Low Cost Auto Pawn, Inc. v. Greco, 851 So. 2d 768 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Am. Home Assur. Co. v. Rosen Bldg. Supplies, Inc., 854 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); Channel 68 Marina, Inc. v. Gilliams, 842 So. 2d 1017 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); Harris v. Kelly, 835 So. 2d 1262 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). . We note, however, that the dissent has not eliminated every basis upon which the trial court could…
-
Montgomery v. State, 70 So. 3d 603 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)…rmation of intent. See, e.g., Carpenter v. State, 785 So. 2d 1182 (Fla.2001) (citation omitted) (noting the distinction between premeditated intent and “mere intent”); Green v. State, 715 So. 2d 940, 943 (Fla.1998) (citation omitted); Neal v. State, 854 So. 2d 666, 670 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (citations omitted). Accordingly, we hold that the instructions, as given, improperly imposed an additional element on the lesser-included offense of manslaughter. Appellant contends that, due to the erroneous instructions,…
-
Zeigler v. State, 18 So. 3d 1239 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)…rmation of intent. See, e.g., Carpenter v. State, 785 So. 2d 1182 (Fla.2001) (citation omitted) (noting the distinction between premeditated intent and “mere intent”); Green v. State, 715 So. 2d 940, 943 (Fla.1998) (citation omitted); Neal v. State, 854 So. 2d 666, 670 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (citations omitted). Accordingly, we hold that the instructions, as given, improperly imposed an additional element on the lesser-included offense of manslaughter. Id. at-. Thus, the decision in Montgomery conflicts with the…
Previewing 3 of 15 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence