Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSubmittal-3^ee )el- ack !or- it.3 Inal arias Thk LLJ aris = 0 mend-- Ll._ Dad vhicli__ c e e Kden ' n isettUJ et )rid CO CO achuu- Cl. death :ances, rors it .n per- io, the ection- juror such -ly pre - case PICHETTE v. CITY Cite as 642 So.2d 1165 where decedent was exposed to asbestos in Massachusetts but moved to Florida long before onset of his resulting illness and died a citizen of Florida. Daniel A. Brown and David M. Lipman, Miami, for appellant. Crosby, Saad, Beebe & Crump, Mobile, AL, Berger & Chafetz and Steven R. Berger, Miami, for appellee. Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and NESBITT and LEVY, JJ. PER CURIAM. Collins was exposed to asbestos in Massa- chusetts, but moved to Florida long before the onset of his resulting illness and died a citizen of this state.1 We hold that the law of Florida, rather than Massachusetts, was properly applied below to determine the measure of damages for his wrongful death. See Bishop v. Florida Specialty Paint Co., 389 So.2d 999 (F1a.1980); Proprietors Ins. Co. v. Valsecchi, 435 So.2d 290 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), pet. for review denied, 449 So.2d 265 (F1a.1984); Harris v. Berkowitz, 433 So.2d 613 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). Affirmed. Pierre PICHETTE, Alan Yarkin, and Gaytan Mayrand Torres, Appellants, v. CITY OF NORTH MIAMI and Perform- ing Arts Management of North Miami, Inc., Appellees. No. 94-102. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District. Sept. 28, 1994. In challenge to zoning ordinance, final summary judgment for defendants was 1. Collins died after recovering a personal injury verdict and judgment but before they were re- versed. See Owens—Corning Fiberglas v. Terwilli- OF NORTH MIAMI Fla. 1165 (FIa.App. 3 Dist. 1994) granted by the Circuit Court, Dade County, Harold Solomon, J., and plaintiffs appealed. The District Court of Appeal held that plain- tiffs, none of whose land was within 2,800 feet of rezoned tract, lacked standing. Affirmed. Zoning and Planning C=571 Plaintiffs had no legally recognized in- terest which would be adversely affected by challenged zoning ordinance and thus lacked standing to challenge the ordinance where one lived in another city more than a mile across a bay from the rezoned site and the others were separated by 57—acre buffer area from rezoned tract, at distances of 3,000 and 2,800 feet, and there was no genuine issue raised by the record that any plaintiffs would be affected by noise, traffic impact, land val- ue diminution or in any other respect by the subject zoning ordinance. John G. Fletcher, South Miami, for appel- lants. Davis, Scott, Weber & Edwards and Laura Besvinick, New York City; David M. Wolpin, North Miami, for appellees. Before HUBBART and BASKIN and GREEN, JJ. PER CURIAM. The final summary judgment under review is affirmed upon a holding that the appellants herein have no legally recognized interest which will be adversely affected by the zon- ing ordinance of the City of North Miami which appellants challenged below, and therefore they lacked any standing to bring the declaratory judgment action because (1) the appellant Allan Yarkin lives in the City of Bay Harbor Islands, more than a mile across Biscayne Bay from the rezoned site under ger, 599 So.2d 130 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992), review denied, 613 So.2d 9 (F1a.1992). 1166 Fla. 642 SOUTHERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES attack, and there is no genuine issue raised by this record that he would be affected by noise, traffic impact, land value diminution, or in any other respect by the subject zoning ordinance; and (2) the appellants Pierre Pi- chette and Gaytan Torres live in the City of North Miami Beach, separated by a 57—acre buffer area from the rezoned tract of land, 3,000 and 2,800 feet, respectively, away from said tract, and there is no genuine issue raised by this record that they would be affected by noise, traffic impact, land value diminution, or in any other respect by the subject zoning ordinance, Renard v. Dade County, 261 So.2d 832 (F1a.1972); see § 163.- 3215(2), F1a.Stat. (1993); Citizens Growth Management Coalition of West Palm Beach, Inc. v. City of West Palm Beach, Inc., 450 So.2d 204, 208 (F1a.1984); compare South- west Ranches Homeowner's Ass'n v. Bro- ward County, 502 So.2d 931 (Fla. 4th DCA) (adjoining landowners with potential pollu- tion, flood problems had standing), rev. de- nied, 511 So.2d 999 (F1a.1987). This being so, it was entirely proper for the trial court to enter the summary judgment under re- view on the basis that there was no genuine issue of material fact and the defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law, given the appellants' lack of standing to chal- lenge the subject zoning ordinance. See En- nis v. Warm Mineral Springs, Inc., 203 So.2d 514, 517 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967), cert. denied, 210 So.2d 870 (F1a.1968). Affirmed. Shawn INMON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. No. 94-1967. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District. Sept. 28, 1994. Defendant convicted of extortion and tampering with evidence filed a motion to correct illegal sentence. The Circuit Court, Broward County, Richard D. Eade, J., de- nied motion, and defendant appealed. The District Court of Appeal, Stevenson, J., held that remand was necessary for resentencing to determine whether sentence would be bumped up for violations of probation. Reversed and remanded for resentenc- ing. 1. Criminal Law ca982.9(7) "Bump ups" of sentence for violation of probation are not mandatory, but are discre- tionary with judge. 2. Criminal Law a1181.5(8) Remand was necessary for resentencing to determine whether sentence would be bumped up for violations of probation where sentencing scoresheet was improperly calcu- lated and error affected guidelines range. Shawn Inmon, pro se. Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Talla- hassee, and Don M. Rogers, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee. STEVENSON, Judge. Appellant, Shawn Inmon, appeals the deni- al of his motion to correct illegal sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Proce- dure 3.800(a) alleging that he was not sen- tenced in accordance with sentencing guide- lines because of a scoresheet error. We reverse and remand for resentencing be- cause, as the state concedes and we agree, the sentencing scoresheet had been improp- erly calculated and the error affected the guidelines range. Appellant was convicted in two separate cases of extortion and tampering with evi- dence and was sentenced to two years of community control on each case to run con- currently. He subsequently violated his community control and was sentenced to new community control terms. He then violated his ni tencec and fi evider The court mittec The s lated was a gory points appell total up to [1] batior "bum] ted sE cerati 273 (I tiple may range ups fc tory 1 State pellar tortio with five woulc [2] 0 OC -6 silent +� score a ;� E a violat a)•— O ' cannc t HUthe ti c c c Q were - ca nity t c v appel - �' •c e.g., DCA 1994) ty tc impo; an of Loga DCA bum' givin cann,