Cross-appeals in civil cases.Save for a few inexplicable in·ex·pli·ca·ble
Difficult or impossible to explain or account for.
in·expli·ca·bil rulings by the trial judge, your evidence went in smoothly. You devastated dev·as·tate
tr.v. dev·as·tat·ed, dev·as·tat·ing, dev·as·tates
1. To lay waste; destroy.
2. To overwhelm; confound; stun: was devastated by the rude remark. your opponent's witnesses on cross. Your closing was compelling and the jury deliberated only 10 minutes before returning a verdict for your client. The trial court entered final judgment awarding your client all the relief requested. Or, perhaps the jury did not see it your way, but the trial court entered judgment in your favor in accordance with your motion for directed verdict A procedural device whereby the decision in a case is taken out of the hands of the jury by the judge.
A verdict is generally directed in a jury trial where there is no other possible conclusion because the side with the Burden of Proof has not offered sufficient evidence to . In either event, you prevailed. Your opponent will file a notice of appeal, but you know that most cases are affirmed. You should nevertheless consider whether you need to file a cross-appeal. A cross-appeal is mandatory if the judgment was less than wholly favorable and you plan to seek additional or different relief on appeal, and a "conditional cross-appeal" might be prudent even if you prevailed completely. (1)
When Is a Cross-appeal Mandatory?
Although the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure The rules of appellate procedure are the rules which control the nature and conduct of a legal appeal, which may be:
The case law, however, explains that a cross-appeal is the vehicle for the appellee to challenge unfavorable portions or aspects of the order appealed from by the appellant A person who, dissatisfied with the judgment rendered in a lawsuit decided in a lower court or the findings from a proceeding before an Administrative Agency, asks a superior court to review the decision. . (3) Accordingly, if the judgment is wholly favorable to the appellee, and the appellee wishes only to defend that judgment on appeal, no cross-appeal is required. (4) This is true even when the appellee wishes to argue that the trial court erred in rejecting one or more of the appellee's arguments. As long as the appellee seeks only to defend the result reflected in the judgment or order appealed by the appellant, no cross-appeal is necessary. (5)
A party may not, however, attack a final judgment to enlarge its own rights or lessen the rights of the opposing party without filing a cross-appeal. Jessup v. Redondo, 394 So. 2d 1031 (Fla. 3d DCA (1) (Document Content Architecture) IBM file formats for text documents. DCA/RFT (Revisable-Form Text) is the primary format and can be edited. DCA/FFT (Final-Form Text) has been formatted for a particular output device and cannot be changed. 1981), illustrates this point. In that case, the defendant moved for a new trial and for judgment in accordance with its prior motion for directed verdict. The trial court granted the motion for new trial, and denied the directed verdict motion. The plaintiff appealed the grant of a new trial. On appeal, the court rejected the defendant's argument that a directed verdict should have been granted, because the defendant had failed to cross-appeal from the trial court's denial of its directed verdict motion. Thus, the cross-appeal was required because the defendant was seeking to do more than simply defend the judgment.
A more unusual illustration is the recent decision of the First District in Wiccan Religious Cooperative of Florida, Inc. v. Zingale, 898 So. 2d 134 (Fla. 1st DCA), review granted, 915 So. 2d 1198 (Fla. 2005). The Wiccans filed an action for declaratory judgment declaratory judgment
In law, a judgment merely declaring a right or establishing the legal status or interpretation of a law or instrument. It is binding but is distinguished from other judgments or court opinions in that it includes no executive element (an order that challenging the constitutionality of a sales tax sales tax, levy on the sale of goods or services, generally calculated as a percentage of the selling price, and sometimes called a purchase tax. It is usually collected in the form of an extra charge by the retailer, who remits the tax to the government. exemption statute, also arguing that they were unlawfully denied a renewal of their certificate of exemption. The trial court granted the Department of Revenue's motion for summary judgment motion for summary judgment n. a written request for a judgment in the moving party's favor before a lawsuit goes to trial and based on recorded (testimony outside court) affidavits (or declarations under penalty of perjury), depositions, admissions of fact, answers , ruling that the Wiccans had standing to sue seeking these declarations, but that the statute in question was constitutional.
The Wiccans appealed the court's ruling that the statute was facially constitutional. The department argued in response not only that the statute was constitutional, but that the Wiccans lacked standing. If the standing argument could be used to defend the trial court's judgment, a cross-appeal by the department would have been unnecessary. The standing argument, however, inherently involved an attack on that judgment, because if the plaintiff lacked standing to bring the declaratory judgment action, then the trial court had no jurisdiction to hold the statute constitutional. Yet the department had not filed a cross-appeal.
The First District agreed with the department's lack-of-standing argument, holding that the Wiccans were benefited by the very statutes they were challenging, and, thus, lacked the adverse interest required for standing. In addressing the absence of a cross-appeal, the court acknowledged that a cross-appeal must generally be filed to challenge an unfavorable "portion" of a final judgment otherwise substantially favorable to the appellee, but it stated that the rule was not jurisdictional and could be waived by consent. (6) Because both parties had argued the standing point extensively without objection, the court found that the cross-appeal requirement had been waived. The court accordingly reversed the summary judgment entered for the department on constitutional grounds, and remanded the case with instructions to the trial court to enter summary judgment for the department based on lack of standing.
When Is a Separate Appeal Mandatory?
In Wiccan, the ruling challenged by the appellee was contained in the final judgment that was the subject of the main appeal, and it was integrally related to that final judgment. In contrast, when the appellee wishes to challenge a ruling that is separate and distinct from the appealed final judgment, the appellee must file a notice of appeal (thereby becoming an appellant in a separate appeal), rather than a notice of cross-appeal. (7)
This distinction can be critical because the appellee in a civil case must serve the notice of cross-appeal within 30 days after rendition ren·di·tion
1. The act of rendering.
2. An interpretation of a musical score or a dramatic piece.
3. A performance of a musical or dramatic work.
4. A translation, often interpretive. of the judgment or order appealed from, or 10 days after service of the appellant's notice of appeal, whichever is later. (8) This contrasts with the requirements placed upon the appellant, who must file a notice of appeal within 30 days of rendition of the order sought to be appealed. (9) Therefore, a party who mistakenly believes that a cross-appeal, rather than a separate appeal, is appropriate and relies on the more liberal deadline for filing a notice of cross-appeal, may end up the proud possessor of an untimely appeal, rather than a timely cross-appeal.
Breakstone v. Baron's of Surfside surf·side
Situated or sited at or near the seashore: surfside parties; a surfside road. , Inc., 528 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), (10) demonstrates the potential problem. In that case, the plaintiff won a verdict and judgment and the defendants filed post-trial motions. Those motions were denied by the trial court. In the same order, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees. The defendants timely filed a notice of appeal, and the plaintiff, within 10 days after the defendants' notice, but more than 30 days after entry of the order, filed a notice of cross-appeal.
The appellate court A court having jurisdiction to review decisions of a trial-level or other lower court.
An unsuccessful party in a lawsuit must file an appeal with an appellate court in order to have the decision reviewed. held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the plaintiffs' cross-appeal. As the court explained, a cross-appeal "piggy backs" jurisdictionally on the notice of appeal, and is, therefore, confined con·fine
v. con·fined, con·fin·ing, con·fines
1. To keep within bounds; restrict: Please confine your remarks to the issues at hand. See Synonyms at limit. to those trial court orders or rulings adverse to the appellee that either "merge" into or are an inherent part of the order properly under review in the main appeal. The trial court's ruling on the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees motion had been set forth in the same order as its denial of the defendants' post-trial motions, but the defendants had appealed from the earlier judgment, not from the post-trial order. The post-trial order had merely rendered that earlier judgment final. The attorneys' fees order, therefore, was a separately appealable order that did not "merge" into the final judgment, (11) and the district court was without jurisdiction to review the order under the plaintiffs' cross-appeal. Nor could the court treat the notice of cross-appeal as a notice of appeal because it was not filed within 30 days of rendition of the order in question.
The Third District in Florida Windstorm wind·storm
A storm with high winds or violent gusts but little or no rain.
A storm with high winds or violent gusts but little or no rain. Underwriting Underwriting
1. The process by which investment bankers raise investment capital from investors on behalf of corporations and governments that are issuing securities (both equity and debt).
2. The process of issuing insurance policies. v. Gajwani, 30 Fla. L. Weekly D1213 (Fla. 3d DCA May 11, 2005), applied this principle to foreclose fore·close
v. fore·closed, fore·clos·ing, fore·clos·es
a. To deprive (a mortgagor) of the right to redeem mortgaged property, as when payments have not been made.
b. review of a plaintiff's cross-appeal of a judgment that had been entered in favor one defendant, even though that judgment was contained in the same order as a judgment entered against another defendant who had appealed. In dismissing the cross-appeal, the court held that a judgment against one defendant was separate and distinct from a judgment against another defendant, even if the two judgments were combined in the same document. In doing so, the court disagreed with the holding of the First District in Sun Bank of Gainesville v. O'Steen Brothers, Inc., 634 So. 2d 262 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994), which had held under similar circumstances that a plaintiff could cross-appeal from a final summary judgment in favor of one defendant when the second defendant had appealed a judgment entered against it contained in the same document.
Can an Appellee Cross-appeal When the Final Judgment Is Wholly Favorable?
A conditional cross-appeal, sometimes referred to as a "protective" or "contingent" cross-appeal, may be filed when a party is generally pleased with the judgment, but wants to "insure that any errors against his interests are reviewed so that if the main appeal results in modification of the judgment his grievances will be determined as well." (12) A conditional cross-appeal is reached only if the appellate court reverses or modifies the judgment subject of the main appeal. (13) Numerous federal decisions have endorsed this practice. (14) Federal decisions support the practice of conditionally cross-appealing from a wholly favorable judgment by reasoning that once an appellate court reverses or modifies the judgment, that judgment may then become adverse to the appellee's interests. (15)
Although Florida law The jurisprudence of this state offers major differences from doctrines prevailing in the United States at either the federal level or that of the various states.
Homestead exemption from forced sale, the dangerous instrumentality doctrine, the right to privacy, and the Williams on this issue is scant, it appears to support this practice as well. In Allington Towers North, Inc. v. Weisberg, 452 So. 2d 1122 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), the Fourth District Court of Appeal addressed whether a builder's third party indemnification claim against subcontractors would survive after the appellate court reversed the trial court's order dismissing the complaint against both the builder and the subcontractors. There, plaintiffs appealed the trial court's order dismissing the case. The defendant builder, however, did not appeal the order as it related to its third party claim against the subcontractors. In reversing the trial court's order and reactivating the main claim, the Fourth District held that "defendant builder should not be barred from exercising his indemnification claim because he failed to appeal from an order which entirely vindicated him." (16) However, the court noted that "[p]erhaps it would have been better practice for the builder to file what would be tantamount tan·ta·mount
Equivalent in effect or value: a request tantamount to a demand.
[From obsolete tantamount, an equivalent, from Anglo-Norman to a contingent cross-appeal but we do not require it." (17)
In Dauer v. Freed, 444 So. 2d 1012 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), (18) the court held that it could consider a cross-appeal even though the final judgment was wholly favorable to the appellees, for the simple reason that an appellee may assert as error any adverse interlocutory Provisional; interim; temporary; not final; that which intervenes between the beginning and the end of a lawsuit or proceeding to either decide a particular point or matter that is not the final issue of the entire controversy or prevent irreparable harm during the pendency of the order entered before the final judgment. In his concurrence CONCURRENCE, French law. The equality of rights, or privilege which several persons-have over the same thing; as, for example, the right which two judgment creditors, Whose judgments were rendered at the same time, have to be paid out of the proceeds of real estate bound by them. Dict. de Jur. h.t. , Judge Hubbart agreed, although he admitted that the question was "not free from doubt." As he explained, cross-appeal practice replaced the prior practice of assignments of error, and under that prior practice, adverse interlocutory rulings could be reviewed. Judge Hubbart reasoned that to hold that cross-appeals could never be taken when the final judgment is wholly favorable to the appellee would be inconsistent with the prior practice and drastically limit the scope of cross-appeals. (19)
Can an Appellee Waive To intentionally or voluntarily relinquish a known right or engage in conduct warranting an inference that a right has been surrendered.
For example, an individual is said to waive the right to bring a tort action when he or she renounces the remedy provided by law for such Issues by Failing to File a Conditional Cross-appeal?
Allington Towers North suggests that failing to file a conditional cross-appeal will not result in a waiver of arguments for purposes of subsequent proceedings. Moreover, the doctrine of law of the case applies only to issues that were decided expressly or by necessary implication by an appellate court. (20) It appears, however, that at least certain types of arguments may be waived by failing to raise them by way of conditional cross-appeal.
In AirVac, Inc. v. Ranger Insurance Co., 330 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 1976), for example, the defendant moved for leave to amend the pleadings shortly before trial. The request was denied, but the defendant prevailed at trial. On appeal, the defendant did not raise the amendment issue by cross-appeal. The district court of appeal reversed the judgment for the defendant and remanded for a new trial. On remand To send back.
A higher court may remand a case to a lower court so that the lower court will take a certain action ordered by the higher court. A prisoner who is remanded into custody is sent back to prison subsequent to a Preliminary Hearing before a tribunal or magistrate , the trial court held that the defendant was precluded from raising the amendment issue. The Supreme Court agreed. (21) Although the Supreme Court in AirVac referred to its decision as an application of law of the case, in Florida Department of Transportation The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) is a decentralized agency charged with the establishment, maintenance, and regulation of public transportation in the state of Florida. v. Juliano, 801 So. 2d 101 (Fla. 2001), the court clarified that the basis of the AirVac decision was waiver, rather than law of the case.
It is unclear how far the AirVac holding extends and to what extent an appellee who fails to cross-appeal may be in danger of waiving points other than amendments to the pleadings. A general rule requiring an appellee to file a conditional cross-appeal in order to avoid waiver would be undesirable. Such a rule would lead to an increase in the filing and briefing of such cross-appeals. Yet, because most cases are affirmed, and the conditional cross-appeal issues, therefore, are not reached, such a rule would burden litigants and the court system with unnecessary briefing. (22)
In all events, however, in view of the uncertainty presented by AirVac and Juliano, an appellee considering whether to file a conditional cross-appeal as to a particular issue should consider the possibility that a failure to do so will result in waiver, and perhaps err on the side of filing a cross-appeal if the issue is sufficiently important. Of course, even aside from avoiding any issue of waiver, a conditional cross-appeal might be worthwhile if it allows the appellee an efficient method of correcting errors by the trial court that would otherwise burden any subsequent proceedings.
Negative Impacts Resulting from Filing a Cross-appeal
At the same time, taking a cross-appeal, conditional or otherwise, may have some impacts that should be considered when deciding how to proceed. (23) For example, taking a cross-appeal could complicate com·pli·cate
tr. & intr.v. com·pli·cat·ed, com·pli·cat·ing, com·pli·cates
1. To make or become complex or perplexing.
2. To twist or become twisted together.
1. the issues being briefed and thereby distract the court or detract from detract from
verb 1. lessen, reduce, diminish, lower, take away from, derogate, devaluate << OPPOSITE enhance
verb 2. more central and possibly stronger arguments. It may also put the appellee in the position of arguing that the trial judge was correct for purposes of arguments supporting affirmance, but erred in connection with the issues on the cross-appeal. This position may be awkward to the extent that the issues are interrelated in·ter·re·late
tr. & intr.v. in·ter·re·lat·ed, in·ter·re·lat·ing, in·ter·re·lates
To place in or come into mutual relationship.
in . A conditional cross-appeal, in particular, presents a fallback fall·back
a. Something to which one can resort or retreat.
b. A retreat.
2. Computer Science argument that may suggest a lack of confidence on the part of the appellee in arguments for affirmance.
Other possible ramifications ramifications npl → Auswirkungen pl may be more speculative but worth considering. For example, setting aside the issue of possible waiver noted above, if an appellee does not take a conditional cross-appeal to challenge unfavorable interlocutory rulings, and the trial court adheres to those rulings on remand, the appellee can take part in further proceedings below with the knowledge that it may have one or more arguments that can be raised on appeal in the event of an adverse judgment the second time around. This knowledge could be used as a bargaining chip bar·gain·ing chip
Something, especially an inducement or concession, used as leverage in negotiations: "A bargaining chip is ultimately worthless if you're not willing to bargain it away" in settlement negotiations. On the other hand, if in the original appeal the appellee pursues a conditional cross-appeal and the court not only reverses the judgment but also rules against the appellee on the conditional cross-appeal issues, that bargaining chip will be lost.
When faced with a favorable judgment, the appellee should first consider whether it accords all the relief sought. If so, then no cross-appeal will be required to argue any grounds in support of affirmance, even grounds that require the appellee to argue that portions of the trial court's order were in error, as long as the appellee is seeking to support the same result reached by the trial court rather than an enlargement of its rights.
If, on the other hand, the judgment is not wholly favorable, and the unfavorable aspect is an inherent part of the judgment, a cross-appeal may be taken. If the unfavorable aspect of the judgment is analytically distinct from the order appealed by the appellant, or is contained in a separate order, an appeal, filed within 30 days, rather than a cross-appeal will be in order.
Even if the judgment is wholly favorable, the possibility of filing a conditional cross-appeal should be considered. A cross-appeal will eliminate possible arguments in subsequent proceedings that challenges to the rulings in question have been waived. Further, filing a conditional cross-appeal may allow the appellee to overturn adverse rulings without having to go through the time and expense of further proceedings below. Pursuing such a cross-appeal, however, may negatively impact the presentation of arguments for affirmance of the judgment.
(1) Although this article focuses on civil appeals, cross-appeals may be taken in criminal cases. Criminal defendants can appeal only from final orders while the state may appeal from either final or interlocutory orders. However, if the state files the main appeal from an interlocutory order, a defendant may then raise a cross-appeal addressing any part of that order. See Lopez v. State, 638 So. 2d 931 (Fla. 1994). Conversely, if the defendant files the main appeal from a final order, the state may cross-appeal only rulings of law, but not fact. See FLA. STAT. [section] 924.07(1)(d) (2005); FLA. R. APP See application.
app - application program . P. 9.140(c)(1)(K).
(2) See FLA. R. APP. P. 9.110(g); cf FED. R. APP. P. 4(a)(3) ("If one party timely files a notice of appeal, any other party may file a notice of appeal within 14 days.... ").
(3) See Breakstone v. Baron's of Surfside, Inc., 528 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. 1988); Webb Gen. Contracting, Inc. v. PDM (1) (Product Data Management) An information system used to manage the data for a product as it passes from engineering to manufacturing. The data includes plans, geometric models, CAD drawings, images, NC programs as well as all related project data, notes and Hydrostorage, Inc., 397 So. 2d 1058,1059 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. 1981).
(4) See, e.g., Gellert v. E. Air Lines, Inc., 370 So. 2d 802 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. 1979) (holding that a defendant who obtained a directed verdict on one ground could, without a cross-appeal, argue for affirmance on a separate ground that was not accepted by the trial court).
(5) See Credit Indus. Co. v. Re-Mark Chem. Co., 67 So. 2d 540, 541 (Fla. 1953); City of Coral Gables Coral Gables, city (1990 pop. 40,091), Miami-Dade co., SE Fla., SW of Miami; inc. 1925. Founded at the height of the Florida land boom, Coral Gables is a noted planned city, with tree-lined boulevards and Mediterranean-style buildings. v. Puiggros, 376 So. 2d 281, 284 n.4 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. 1979).
(6) Other Florida decisions have held that the time limit for filing a notice of cross-appeal is nonjurisdictional and may be extended by the appellate court. See, e.g., Breakstone, 528 So. 2d at 439. An appellate court, however, may dismiss an untimely cross-appeal if there is no good reason for the delay or the rights of other parties are prejudiced. See PHILIP J. PADOVANO, FLORIDA APPELLATE PRACTICE [section] 21.9 (2004 ed.).
(7) See Webb, 397 So. 2d at 1059-60.
(8) See FLA. R. APP. P. 9.110(g).
(9) See FLA. R. APP. P. 9.110(b).
(10) See also Webb, 397 So. 2d at 1059-60; Fla. Windstorm Underwriting v. Gajwani, 30 Fla. L. Weekly D1213 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. May 11, 2005).
(11) See FLA. R. APP. P. 9.130(a)(4) (providing that, other than orders on motions that postpone rendition, nonfinal orders entered after final orders are reviewable by the method prescribed in Rule 9.110).
(12) Hartman v. Duffey, 19 F.3d 1459, 1465 (D.C. Cir. 1994).
(13) See id.
(14) See, e.g., Council 31 Am. Fed'n of State, County & Mun n. 1. The mouth.
One a penny, two a penny, hot cross buns,
Butter them and sugar them and put them in your muns.
- Old Rhyme. . Employees, AFL-CIO AFL-CIO: see American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations.
in full American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations
U.S. v. Ward, 978 F.2d 373, 380 (7th Cir. 1992) ("Nominally prevailing parties The litigant who successfully brings or defends an action and, as a result, receives a favorable judgment or verdict.
prevailing party n. the winner in a lawsuit. are entitled to file such cross-appeals against the contingency that this court will reverse an otherwise thoroughly satisfactory judgment."); Ericsson, Inc. v. Harris Corp., 352 F.3d 1369, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (addressing defendants' conditional cross-appeal of a damages issue after the appellate court reversed the trial court's grant of judgment as a matter of law Judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) is a motion made by a party, during trial, claiming the opposing party has insufficient evidence to reasonably support its case. JMOL is similar to summary judgment, which is a motion made before trial. ).
(15) See id.; see also CHARLES A. WRIGHT ET AL., 15A FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE [section] 3902 (2d ed. 1991). Under Florida law it is also generally true that a person bringing an appeal must show that he or she is, or will be, injuriously in·ju·ri·ous
1. Causing or tending to cause injury; harmful: eating habits that are injurious to one's health.
2. affected by the order sought to be reviewed. King v. Brown, 55 So. 2d 187, 188 (Fla. 1951).
(16) Allington Towers North, 452 So. 2d at 1123.
(17) Id. (footnote omitted).
(18) See also Jordan v. Fehr, 902 So. 2d 198, 201 (Fla. 1st D.C.A. 2005) (stating that once the court's jurisdiction is properly invoked by the appellant's notice of appeal, the court may review any ruling occurring prior to the filing of that notice).
(19) See Allen v. TIC Participations Trust, 722 So. 2d 260, 261 (Fla. 4th D.C.A. 1998) (agreeing with Judge Hubbart's analysis and holding that a cross-appeal may bring up for review prior orders that have merged into the final judgment). Such a cross-appeal is technically from the final order even though the error asserted by appellee relates to a prior interlocutory order. Id. at 261. The court in Breakstone, 528 So. 2d at 439, stated that the cross-appeal notice must identify the specific orders claimed as error. This seems questionable, since the rules do not expressly require it and the appellant is not required in the notice of appeal to specify the interlocutory orders claimed as error.
(20) The doctrine of law of the case provides that "questions of law actually decided on appeal must govern the case in the same court and the trial court, through all subsequent stages of the proceeding." Fla. Dep't of Transp. v. Juliano, 801 So. 2d 101, 105 (Fla. 2001).
(21) Airvac, 330 So. 2d at 469.
(22) For interesting discussions regarding conditional cross-appeals and related issues of waiver and law of the case, see the majority and dissenting opinions dissenting opinion n. (See: dissent) in Nautilus nautilus, in zoology
nautilus, cephalopod mollusk belonging to the sole surviving genus (Nautilus) of a subclass that flourished 200 million years ago, known as the nautiloids. Group, Inc. v. Icon Health & Fitness, Inc., 437 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2006), and Basile v. H & R Block, Inc., 894 A.2d 786 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2006). The 11th Circuit appears to hold that an appellee does not waive arguments regarding erroneous trial court rulings by failing to cross-appeal from a judgment that is wholly favorable. See Mosher A mosher is a person who is crossed between goth/punk/skater they have long hair and listen to music like slipknot and metal music. Some people call them headbangers. At certain music shows they have something called a mosh pit, basically its a fight pit with loads of people bashing each other. v. Speedstar Div. of AMCA AMCA Atlas Mathematical Conference Abstracts
AMCA American Mosquito Control Association
AMCA Amateur Motor Cycle Association (UK)
AMCA Air Movement and Control Association International, Inc. Int'l, Inc., 52 F.3d 913, 917 (11th Cir. 1995).
(23) See generally DAVID David, in the Bible
David, d. c.970 B.C., king of ancient Israel (c.1010–970 B.C.), successor of Saul. The Book of First Samuel introduces him as the youngest of eight sons who is anointed king by Samuel to replace Saul, who had been deemed a failure. G. KNIBB, FEDERAL COURT OF APPEALS MANUAL [section] 11.2 (2004) (discussing considerations regarding decision to cross-appeal).
E. Kelly Bittick, Jr., is a shareholder in the Tampa office of Carlton Fields, PA. His practice includes complex litigation An action brought in court to enforce a particular right. The act or process of bringing a lawsuit in and of itself; a judicial contest; any dispute.
When a person begins a civil lawsuit, the person enters into a process called litigation. , products liability, and appeals. He received his J.D. from the University of Florida University of Florida is the third-largest university in the United States, with 50,912 students (as of Fall 2006) and has the eighth-largest budget (nearly $1.9 billion per year). UF is home to 16 colleges and more than 150 research centers and institutes. and his A.B. from Harvard University Harvard University, mainly at Cambridge, Mass., including Harvard College, the oldest American college. Harvard College
Harvard College, originally for men, was founded in 1636 with a grant from the General Court of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. , both with high honors.
Sorraya M. Solages is currently an associate with Carlton Fields concentrating in appeals and trial support. She received her J.D. from Nova Southeastern University History
Originally named Nova University of Advanced Technology, the university was chartered by the state of Florida in 1964 as a graduate institution in the physical and social sciences. Shepard Broad Law Center Shepard Broad Law Center, founded in 1974, is the law school of Nova Southeastern University. The Law Center is housed in Leo Goodwin Sr. Hall, located on Nova Southeastern University's main campus in Davie, Florida and is named after university founder Shepard Broad. and her B.A. from the University of Central Florida “UCF” redirects here. For other uses, see UCF (disambiguation).
UCF is a member institution of the State University System of Florida. UCF was founded in 1963 as Florida Technological University with the goal of providing highly trained personnel to support the Kennedy . She also served as a judicial clerk to Judge Robert M. Gross of the Fourth District Court of Appeal.
This column is submitted on behalf of the Appellate Practice Section, Thomas D Thomas D. (born Thomas Dürr, December 30 1968 in Ditzingen close to Stuttgart, Germany) is a rapper in the German hip hop group Die Fantastischen Vier. He frequently works on solo projects. Life
After finishing Realschule he took on an apprenticeship as a barber. . Hall, chair, and Wendy S Wendy is a female name which may be used as a short form for Gwendolyn, or in its own right. Its popularity is attributed to the character Wendy Darling from the children's play and novel Peter Pan, by J.M. Barrie. The character Wendy was inspired by a real girl. . Loquasto, editor.