PELICAN SHIP CORPORATION, ETC., ET AL., PETITIONERS,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, ETC., RESPONDENT

Citator

Cited By

• Dep't OF Revenue v. Hobbs, 368 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)
  …rators who, like appellees, took their customers outside the state’s territorial limits and there sold them refreshments or rented them fishing equipment. . Department of Revenue v. Pelican Ship Corp., 257 So. 2d 56 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972), cert. den., 262 So. 2d 682 (Fla.1972), cert. dism. 287 So. 2d 93 (Fla.1974), limited the Kelly I decision only to the collection of taxes on transactions which occurred outside Florida’s territorial waters— not to taxes on admissions which were obtained dockside; Department o…
• Dep't OF Revenue of the State of Fla. v. Anderson, 389 So. 2d 1034 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)
  …le for uncollected admissions taxes accruing during the period from August 1, 1970,2 to February 6, 1972, the date of issuance of the mandate of this court in Department of Revenue v. Pelican Ship Corp., 257 So. 2d 56 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972), cert. den. 262 So. 2d 682 (Fla. 1972), cert. dism. 287 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 1974).3 The trial judge also found that the facts presented “an exceptional set of circumstances” justifying application of the defense of estoppel to prevent collection of the taxes for that period. We a…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• State v. Rickie Lee Palmore, 510 So. 2d 1152 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
  …re cannot deny either that he made the statements or that they are truthful. However, such denials are not grounds for denying admission of the statements. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Nieuwendaal, 253 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971), cert. denied, 262 So. 2d 682 (Fla.1972). . The Supreme Court recognized that the reason a defendant was forced to choose between two rights in a case such as Simmons is because, at one time, a defendant was required to assert some proprietary interest in the unlawfully seized…

Authorities Cited

• Dep't OF Revenue v. Pelican Ship Corp., 257 So. 2d 56 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972)