|
Doc.
|
Date Docketed
|
Description
|
Filed by
|
Notes
|
|
09/25/2009
|
NOTICE-DISCRETIONARY JURIS (DIRECT CONFLICT)
|
PT Ramiro Companioni, Jr. BY: PT Joel D. Eaton 203513
|
W/ATTACHMENTS
|
|
09/29/2009
|
Filing Fee $300
|
2009 - 1011930 Amount: $300
|
|
|
09/29/2009
|
LETTER
|
Hon. James Birkhold BY: Hon. James Birkhold
|
RE: TRANSMITTAL OF FILING FEE
|
|
09/29/2009
|
Fee Paid in Full
|
|
|
|
10/06/2009
|
JURIS INITIAL BRIEF
|
PT Ramiro Companioni, Jr. BY: PT Joel D. Eaton 203513
|
W/APPENDIX (O&5 & E-MAIL)
|
|
10/29/2009
|
JURIS ANSWER BRIEF
|
RS City Of Tampa, Florida TAMPA BY: RS Richard M. Zabak 273406
|
O&5 & E-MAIL
|
|
01/11/2010
|
ORDER-JURIS ACCEPT/BRIEF SCHED (OA LATER DATE)
|
|
The Court accepts jurisdiction of this case. Oral argument will be set by separate order. Counsel for the parties will be notified of the oral argument date approximately sixty days prior to oral argument.
Petitioner's initial brief on the merits shall be served on or before February 5, 2010; respondent's answer brief on the merits shall be served twenty days after service of petitioner's initial brief on the merits; and petitioner's reply brief on the merits shall be served twenty days after service of respondent's answer brief on the merits. Please file an original and seven copies of all briefs.
The Clerk of the Second District Court of Appeal shall file the original record which shall be properly indexed and paginated on or before March 12, 2010. The record shall include the briefs filed in the district court separately indexed.
|
|
01/21/2010
|
MOTION-EXT OF TIME (INITIAL BRIEF-MERITS)
|
PT Ramiro Companioni, Jr. BY: PT Joel D. Eaton 203513
|
|
|
01/25/2010
|
ORDER-EXT OF TIME GR (INITIAL BRIEF-MERITS)
|
|
|
|
02/08/2010
|
RECORD/TRANSCRIPT
|
Hon. James Birkhold BY: Hon. James Birkhold
|
1 CERTIFICATE OF CLERK, 1 VOL. CC PAPERS, 1 VOL. BRIEFS, & 11 VOLS. RECORD (1 BOX)
|
|
03/09/2010
|
INITIAL BRIEF-MERITS
|
PT Ramiro Companioni, Jr. BY: PT Joel D. Eaton 203513
|
O&7 & E-MAIL
|
|
03/22/2010
|
MOTION-EXT OF TIME (ANSWER BRIEF-MERITS)
|
RS City Of Tampa, Florida TAMPA BY: RS William J. Terry 129770
|
|
|
03/23/2010
|
ORDER-EXT OF TIME GR (ANSWER BRIEF-MERITS)
|
|
|
|
04/12/2010
|
LETTER-CANON NOTIFICATION RE: JUSTICE
|
|
RE: JUSTICE CANADY & THOMAS D. HALL (RESPONSES DUE 4/27/2010)
|
|
04/20/2010
|
ANSWER BRIEF-MERITS
|
RS City Of Tampa, Florida TAMPA BY: RS Richard M. Zabak 273406
|
O&7 & E-MAIL
|
|
04/20/2010
|
REQUEST-ORAL ARGUMENT
|
RS City Of Tampa, Florida TAMPA BY: RS Richard M. Zabak 273406
|
O&7
|
|
05/10/2010
|
ORAL ARGUMENT CALENDAR
|
|
|
|
05/10/2010
|
ORDER-OA SCHED (PREV ACCEPTED)
|
|
The Court previously accepted jurisdiction. The Court will hear oral argument at 9:00 a.m., Thursday, September 2, 2010.
A maximum of twenty minutes to the side is allowed for the argument, but counsel is expected to use only so much of that time as is necessary.
NO CONTINUANCES WILL BE GRANTED EXCEPT UPON A SHOWING OF EXTREME HARDSHIP.
|
|
05/14/2010
|
REPLY BRIEF-MERITS
|
PT Ramiro Companioni, Jr. BY: PT Joel D. Eaton 203513
|
O&7 & E-MAIL
|
|
06/07/2010
|
NOTICE-SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY
|
PT Ramiro Companioni, Jr. BY: PT Joel D. Eaton 203513
|
O&7 ***STRICKEN. SEE ORDER DATED 06/08/2010***
|
|
06/08/2010
|
ORDER-SUPP AUTHORITY STRICKEN
|
|
Petitioner's Notice of Supplemental Authority does not comply with Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.225 and is hereby stricken as it contains argument.
|
|
06/28/2010
|
NOTICE-SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY
|
RS City Of Tampa, Florida TAMPA BY: RS Richard M. Zabak 273406
|
O&7
|
|
07/12/2010
|
NOTICE-SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY
|
PT Ramiro Companioni, Jr. BY: PT Joel D. Eaton 203513
|
O&7
|
|
09/01/2010
|
NOTICE-SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY
|
RS City Of Tampa, Florida TAMPA BY: RS Richard M. Zabak 273406
|
O&7
|
|
09/02/2010
|
ORAL ARGUMENT HELD
|
|
|
|
12/16/2010
|
DISP-QUASHED & REMANDED
|
|
Accordingly, we quash the decision of the Second District in Companioni, and remand to the Second District for consideration of whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying a new trial based on the analysis set forth in Murphy. After conducting this analysis, if the Second District concludes that the City is not entitled to a new trial, then it should consider any other remaining claims not reached, including the City's claim that the verdict was excessive.
|
|
01/07/2011
|
MANDATE
|
|
CC: COUNSEL
|
|
02/17/2011
|
ARCHIVES
|
|
File
|
