State v. Green

3 Citing cases

  1. Bartsch v. Costello

    170 So. 3d 83 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 16 times
    Explaining respective negligence standards

    GROSS and FORST, JJ., concur.State v. Green, 456 So.2d 1309, 1312 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). Generally, courts “will not adopt as the standard of conduct ... the requirements of a legislative enactment or an administrative regulation whose purpose is found to be exclusively ... to protect the interests of the state or any subdivision of it as such[.]” Restatement (Second) of Torts§ 288(a).

  2. Brown v. Reynolds

    872 So. 2d 290 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 14 times
    Holding that, after the denial of a pretrial writ of replevin, "the trial court must still make a final adjudication of the claims of the parties in accordance with the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure"

    At common law, abandoned property was defined as "that to which the owner has voluntarily relinquished all right, title, claim and possession, with the intention of terminating his ownership, but without vesting ownership in any other person, and with the intention of not reclaiming any future rights therein." State v. Green, 456 So.2d 1309, 1311 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (quoting Campbell v. Cochran, 416 A.2d 211, 221 (Del.Super.Ct. 1980)). Abandonment is a question of intent, and the burden of proving it is on the person asserting it. Dade County v. City of N. Miami Beach, 69 So.2d 780, 783 (Fla.

  3. Opinion No. 1995-381

    Opinion No. 1995-381 (Ops.Ark.Atty.Gen. Jan. 11, 1996)

    It is clear to me that the conclusion stated in that opinion is correct. See Arkansas Dep't of Fin. and Admin. v. City of North Little Rock, 280 Ark. 512, 659 S.W.2d 937 (1983); State v. Green, 456 So.2d 1309 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1984); State v. Coe, 254 Ore. 365, 460 P.2d 357 (1969) (in each of which the Act or another state's enactment of the Uniform Disposition of Unclaimed Property Act (the "Uniform Act") was successfully invoked by a state to take custody of property held by a governmental unit). Accordingly, I must decline to modify the fundamental conclusion reached in Op. Att'y Gen. 95-036.