Sturdivant v. State

84 So. 3d 1053, 2010 WL 3464984, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 13324
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided September 7, 2010·No. No. 1D08-6058·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinions

ORDER ON MOTION FOR HEARING EN BANC

A judge of this court requested that this cause be considered en banc in accordance with Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.381(c). All judges in regular active service have voted on the request. Less than a majority of those judges voted in favor of hearing en banc. Accordingly, the request for hearing en banc is denied.

WOLF, KAHN, WEBSTER, BENTON, VAN NORTWICK, LEWIS, and CLARK, JJ., concur. PADOVANO, J., concurs with an opinion in which DAVIS, J., concurs. WETHERELL, ROWE, and MARSTILLER, JJ., dissent. THOMAS, J., dissents with an opinion in which HAWKES, C.J. and ROBERTS, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Sturdivant v. State, 84 So. 3d 1053, 2010 WL 3464984, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 13324 (Fla. Ct. App. 2010).

84 So. 3d 1053 (Sturdivant v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Rosenthal Law Firm, LLC v. Cohen
210 A.3d 579 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 2019)
In re Jane Doe 13-A
136 So. 3d 748 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2014)