JUNIOR BOGGS
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
JUNIOR BOGGS
STATE OF FLORIDA
154 Fla. 180
Florida Supreme Court (1944)
Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 17 So. 2d 394
Cited by 12 cases
Opinion of the Court
Affirmed.
BUFORD, C. J., concurs specially.
' TERRELL, THOMAS, ADAMS and SEBRING, JJ., concur.
BROWN and CHAPMAN, JJ., dissent.
concurring specially:
My first impression was that evidence was insufficient to support conviction but careful perusal of evidence shows that accused was apprehended while exercising possession of stolen property and he gave no reasonable explanation for the possession of the stolen property and, therefore, the presumption of guilty knowledge applies and this presumption is not overcome by evidence sufficient to warrant reversal. Therefore, judgment should be affirmed.
Concurrence
BUFORD, C. J.,
concurring specially:
My first impression was that evidence was insufficient to support conviction but careful perusal of evidence shows that accused was apprehended while exercising possession of stolen property and he gave no reasonable explanation for the possession of the stolen property and, therefore, the presumption of guilty knowledge applies and this presumption is not overcome by evidence sufficient to warrant reversal. Therefore, judgment should be affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Russell v. Russell, 507 So. 2d 661 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)…ory of presently reviewable nonfinal orders. Nothing found by this writer states a policy justification for such an order’s being non-appealable until a further order dismissing the complaint has been rendered. See, for example Goldfarb v. Bronston, 154 Fla. 180, 184, 17 So. 2d 300, 301 (1944) and Gates v. Hayner, 22 Fla. 325 (1886), cited therein. See, also, Baker v. Colley, 104 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958), citing Catchings v. Florida-McCracken Concrete Pipe Co., 101 Fla. 792, 135 So. 561 (1931). To tho…
-
S. Ry. Co. v. Junior L. Bowling, 129 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)…cific statutory right to impose the inconvenience. I dissent to the implicit conclusion that the order is an appealable one. Obviously it is not a final order, as it would have been if the cause had been dismissed. See. [*439] Goldfarb v. Bronston, 154 Fla. 180, 17 So. 2d 300. In denying the motion, the court is not disposing of the case; it simply decides that the inconvenience to the defendant of the chosen forum is not sufficient to justify the court in renouncing its admitted jurisdiction to try a case…
-
Raphael v. Carner, 194 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967)…er at law which dismisses less than all counts is interlocutory. Although final in form, such an order can be reviewed only on appeal from a subsequent judgment or order finally adjudicating the entire cause or complaint. Goldfarb v. Bronston, 1944, 154 Fla. 180, 17 So. 2d 300; Morse v. Hendry Corporation, Fla.App.1965, 177 So. 2d 31. Further, an order which dismisses a complaint but also grants leave to amend is interlocutory. Although final in form, such an order can be reviewed only on appeal from a form…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence