DALE KUBASAK, PETITIONER,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY AND MOTOR VEHICLES, RESPONDENT
PER CURIAM.
The petition for writ of certiorari is denied. See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Kaklamanos, 843 So. 2d 885, 889 (Fla.2003) (“A district court should exercise its discretion to grant certiorari review only when there has been a violation of a clearly established principle of law resulting in a miscarriage of justice.”).
We write only to state that Kubasak’s reliance on State v. Muldowny, 871 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004), is misplaced. Muldovmy should not be construed to relieve a respondent in an administrative driver’s license suspension proceeding from the necessity of complying with section 322.2615(6)(c), Florida Statutes (2005), when a subpoenaed witness has failed to appear. Petition for Writ of Certiorari DENIED.
PLEUS, C.J., LAWSON and EVANDER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Perez v. Perez, 100 So. 3d 769 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)…valuating whether an award of fees is appropriate. In doing so, “the trial court must look to each spouse’s need for suit money versus each spouse’s respective ability to pay.” Rosen v. Rosen, 696 So. 2d 697, 699 (Fla.1997); see also Balko v. Balko, 957 So. 2d 15, 16 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). The consideration of need and ability to pay includes a consideration of the overall financial resources of each of the parties, not just income and earning capacity. See Crick v. Crick, 78 So. 3d 696, 699 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012);…
-
Marcia L. Arena v. John F. Arena, 103 So. 3d 1044 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)…in evaluating whether a fee award is appropriate. In doing so, “the trial court must look to each spouse’s need for suit money versus each spouse’s respective ability to pay.” Rosen v. Rosen, 696 So. 2d 697, 699 (Fla.1997); see also Balko v. Balko, 957 So. 2d 15, 16 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). A trial court may also consider “any factor necessary to provide justice and ensure equity between the parties.” Rosen, 696 So. 2d at 700; see also Trespalacios v. Trespalacios, 978 So. 2d 858, 861 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (“[I]n m…
-
Powers v. Powers, 193 So. 3d 1047 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)…counsel.” Cullen v. Cullen, 884 So. 2d 804, 306 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). The appropriate inquiry for entitlement to fees and costs under section 61.16 is “each spouse’s need for suit money versus each spouse’s respective ability to pay.” Balko v. Balko, 957 So. 2d 15, 16 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (quoting Rosen v. Rosen, 696 So. 2d 697, 699 (Fla.1997)); see also Cullen, 884 So. 2d at 306. Of course, there are other factors a court may consider in addition to each spouse’s financial position, such as “the scope and hist…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Keely Kaklamanos, 843 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 2003)
- State v. Muldowny, 871 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)