Circumstances Beyond Control

21 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Earnest Leon Jackson v. State
  100 So. 2d 839· Fla. 1st DCA· 1958-02-18 ·cited 71×
  Earnest Jackson was convicted of manslaughter by culpable negligence after a fatal car collision. The First District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the evidence was insufficient to establish the high degree of negligence required for criminal culpable negligence, even tho
• Wolfolk v. Rivera
  729 F.2d 1114· 7th Cir.· 1984-03-14 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the plaintiff alleged sufficient facts to fall within an exception to the thirty-day time limit for filing an administrative discrimination claim, based on when facts supporting the claim became apparent.
• Elwira Tarnawski v. Janusz Tarnawski
  851 So. 2d 239· Fla. 4th DCA· 2003-07-30 ·cited 28×
  In a divorce case involving a long-term marriage, the trial court imputed income to the wife at $20 per hour based on conjecture, exceeding her historical earnings of $15 per hour, and used this inflated imputation to deny alimony and reduce child support. The appellate court rev
• Aylor v. United States
  194 F.2d 968· 5th Cir.· 1952-03-13 ·cited 24×
  The beneficiary's claim for waiver of premiums was correctly denied because there was insufficient evidence that the insured was mentally incapable of filing a timely application due to circumstances beyond his control.
• Horton v. United States
  207 F.2d 91· 5th Cir.· 1953-07-10 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the insured's insurance policy lapsed due to non-payment of premiums because the waiver of premiums was not self-executing and required a new application after its termination, which was not filed.
• United States v. Sinor
  238 F.2d 271· 5th Cir.· 1956-11-14 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the Government had the burden to prove the insured was not prevented from filing a timely waiver application due to circumstances beyond his control.
• United States v. Myers
  213 F.2d 223· 8th Cir.· 1954-06-04 ·cited 14×
  The court held that ignorance of a disabling condition, caused by the government's negligent misinformation, can constitute circumstances beyond the insured's control for waiving late premium payments. It also held that attorney fees can be awarded from potential future payments
• United States v. Boswell
  605 F.2d 171· 5th Cir.· 1979-10-24 ·cited 12×
  A revocation of probation for failure to pay restitution requires a showing that the failure was due to the defendant's willful neglect or deliberate action, not merely inability to pay due to circumstances beyond their control.
• In the Interest of D.P.
  595 So. 2d 62· Fla. 1st DCA· 1991-12-03 ·cited 10×
  Barbara and Clarence Fitts appealed the termination of their parental rights regarding three children. The Florida appellate court reversed and remanded, finding the notice by publication did not comply with statutory requirements and the trial court failed to make a specific fin
• SLY v. United States
  220 F.2d 212· 7th Cir.· 1955-03-17 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the doctrine of estoppel was erroneously applied by the trial court, as the essential elements for its application were absent. The beneficiary's failure to inform the insured of his condition did not prejudice the government.
• Dorcas Irene Tonnelier v. Tonnelier
  571 So. 2d 522· Fla. 1st DCA· 1990-12-05 ·cited 6×
  The wife appealed the trial court's denial of her petition to convert rehabilitative alimony to permanent periodic alimony after her rehabilitative period expired. The court reversed, holding that the trial court applied the wrong legal standard by requiring a change in circumsta
• United States v. Greene
  456 F.2d 256· 9th Cir.· 1972-02-23 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a conviction for failure to report for induction is complete on the date of failure to report, and subsequent conditions are irrelevant.
• Jackson v. Jackson
  98 So. 3d 112· Fla. 2d DCA· 2012-07-18 ·cited 4×
  Wife sought certiorari review of a trial court's denial of her contempt motion against Husband for failure to pay $92,000 in temporary alimony and attorney's fees. The appellate court granted the petition, quashed the trial court's order, and found that Husband willfully violated
• Nazzaro v. Dupont
  483 So. 2d 884· Fla. 3d DCA· 1986-03-04 ·cited 4×
• Gossage v. United States
  229 F.2d 166· 6th Cir.· 1956-01-26 ·cited 4×
  A veteran's beneficiary cannot revive a lapsed right to waiver of premiums if the insured, at the time of death, had already lost that right due to failure to apply within the statutory period, unless that failure was due to circumstances beyond the insured's control.
• K. E. v. Dept. of Child. & Families
  335 So. 3d 226· Fla. 2d DCA· 2022-03-18 ·cited 1×
  The appellate court affirmed the termination of a father's parental rights, despite his disconnection from a remote hearing. The court held that the father should have filed a motion to vacate the judgment, rather than appealing directly, to determine if his disconnection was vol
• Martinez v. Monroe Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't
  788 So. 2d 400· Fla. 3d DCA· 2001-07-05
  The court held that the plaintiff showed good cause for a continuance due to circumstances beyond his control, warranting a new hearing.
• Azarkhish v. Off. OF Pers. Mgmt.
  915 F.2d 675· Fed. Cir.· 1990-09-24
  The court held that substantial evidence supported the Administrative Judge's finding that the petitioner was not prevented by circumstances beyond her control from timely requesting reconsideration, and the full Board did not abuse its discretion in denying review.
• Masaki Higa v. McLUCAS
  549 F.2d 152· 9th Cir.· 1977-01-27
  The court held that the Civil Service Commission did not abuse its discretion or act arbitrarily and capriciously in denying Higa's administrative appeal as untimely.
• Cooper v. The United States
  442 F.2d 355· 10th Cir.· 1971-05-12
  The court held that the administrative denial of a late appeal was not arbitrary, capricious, or in excess of administrative power.
• United States v. Donaldson
  246 F.2d 148· 9th Cir.· 1957-06-13
  The court held that the insured's failure to make timely application for waiver of premiums was due to circumstances beyond his control, as he was misled by incorrect medical diagnoses regarding his disabling condition.