PACEMAKER DIAGNOSTIC CLINIC OF AMERICA, INC.

v.

INSTROMEDIX, INC., ET AL.

Citator

Cited By (504 total)

• Liberty Commc'ns, Inc. v. MCI Telecomms. Corp., 733 So. 2d 571 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)
  …alized as conferring a personal right on the parties to have that action, or those claims, adjudicated in a judicial forum. See e.g. Pacemaker Diag. Clinic of America, Inc. v. Instromedix, Inc., 725 F. 2d 537, 541 (9th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 824, 105 S.Ct. 100, 83 L.Ed.2d 45 (1984) (recognizing that the “federal litigant has a personal right, subject to exceptions in certain classes of cases, to demand Article III adjudication of a civil suit.”); accord, Glidden Co. v. Zdanok, 370 U.S. 530,…
• Wilson v. State, 673 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)
  …sincere fear by an officer cannot excuse noncompliance or the protection of the occupants’ privacy interest would depend on no more than an officer’s anxiety.” United States v. McConney, 728 F. 2d 1195,1206 (9th [*517] Cir.) (en banc), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 824,105 5.Ct. 101, 83 L.Ed.2d. 46 (1984). Break With Precedent The majority does not explain why it rejects the holdings of Rodriguez or of State v. Drowne, 436 So. 2d 916 (Fla. 4th DCA), review denied, 441 So. 2d 633 (Fla.1983) (knowledge of machine…
• Icicle Seafoods, Inc. v. Worthington, 475 U.S. 709 (U.S. 1986)
  …ply a de novo standard of review to the application of the exemption to the facts and [to] review the facts under a clearly erroneous standard.” 774 F. 2d, at 352, citing United States v. McConney, 728 F. 2d 1195, 1202 (CA9) (en banc), cert. denied, 469 U. S. 824 (1984). But nowhere in its opinion did the court ever mention any of the factual findings of the District Court, much less discuss or analyze them. The Court of Appeals seems to have believed that the District Court applied the wrong legal standard…