IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA KIRKLYNN FERRELL, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND Appellant, DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED v. CASE NO. 1D13-5661 STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. _/ Opinion filed October 3, 2014. An appeal from the Circuit Court for Gadsden County. Jonathan E. Sjostrom, Judge. Deana K. Marshall, Riverview, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Trisha Meggs Pate and Michael McDermott, Assistant Attorneys General, ..

448 So. 2d 605 (1984) Hyman ASH, Guardian of the Person of Aaron Ash, Incompetent, Appellant, v. COCONUT GROVE BANK, Guardian of the Property of Aaron Ash, Incompetent, and Patricia Ash, Appellees. Nos. 83-839, 83-1327. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District. April 17, 1984. *606 Levin & Fishman and Jacob Fishman, Miami, for appellant. Kimbrell, Hamann, Jennings, Womack, Carlson & Kniskern and Michael P. Andersen, Harold M. Braxton, Miami, for appellees. Before HENDRY, NESBITT and DA..

772 So. 2d 600 (2000) William MATTHEWS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. No. 5D99-3457. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District. December 1, 2000. *601 James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Brynn Newton, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant. Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Belle B. Schumann, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee. SAWAYA, J. William Matthews appeals the judgment and sentence imposed after the jury ..

6 So. 3d 630 (2009) James O'NEILL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. No. 2D07-5641. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District. February 4, 2009. Rehearing Denied April 23, 2009. Amy C. Settlemire, Tampa, for Appellant. FULMER, Judge. James O'Neill appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We reverse the postconviction court's order and remand with instructions to dismiss O'Neill's motion as unt..

464 So. 2d 535 (1985) GOLDEN NUGGET GROUP, et al., Petitioners, v. METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, et al., Respondents. No. 65324. Supreme Court of Florida. February 8, 1985. Gerald F. Richman and Bruce A. Christensen of Floyd, Pearson, Richman, Greer, Weil, Zack & Brumbaugh, Miami, for petitioners. Robert A. Ginsburg, County Atty., and Vicki J. Jay, Asst. County Atty., and Stuart L. Simon of Fine, Jacobson, Block, England, Klein, Colan & Simon, Miami, Special Counsel for Metropolitan Dade County, Luci..

541 So. 2d 691 (1989) David SOLOMON, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Appellee. No. 88-1109. District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District. March 23, 1989. *692 Peter S. Schwedock, of Pelzner, Schwedock, Finkelstein & Klausner, Miami, for appellant. Gergory G. Costas, Thomas H. Bateman, III, Gen. Counsel, Dept. of Transp., for appellee. WENTWORTH, Judge. Appellant seeks review of a March 18, 1988 Public Employees Relations Commission (PERC) order by which the Commission concluded..

This case concerns four Certificate of Need ("CON") applications ("CONs 9891, 9992, 9893, and 9894") that seek to establish long-term acute care hospitals ("LTCHs") in Miami-Dade County (the "County" or "Miami-Dade County"), a part of AHCA District 11 (along with Monroe County). Promise Healthcare of Florida XI, Inc. ("Promise") in CON 9891, Select Specialty Hospital-Dade, Inc. ("Select-Dade") in CON 9892, and Kindred Hospitals East, L.L.C. ("Kindred"), in CON 9894, seek to construct and operate a 60-bed freestanding LTCH in the County. Miami Jewish Home and Hospital for the Aged, Inc. ("MJH"), in CON 9893, seeks to establish a 30-bed hospital within a hospital ("HIH") on its existing campus in the County. In its State Agency Action Report (the "SAAR"), AHCA concluded that all of the need methodologies presented by the applicants were unreliable. Accordingly, AHCA staff recommended denial of the four applications. The recommendation was adopted by the Agency when it issued the SAAR. The Agency maintained throughout the final hearing that all four applications should be denied, although of the four, if any were to be granted, it professed a preference for MJH on the basis, among other reasons, of a more reliable need methodology. Since the hearing the Agency has changed its position with regard to MJH. In its proposed recommended order, AHCA supports approval of MJH's application. MJH and Promise agree with the AHCA that there is need for the 30 LTCH beds proposed by MJH for its HIH and that MJH otherwise meets the criteria for approval of its application. MJH seeks approval of its application only. Likewise, the Agency supports approval of only MJH's application. Promise, on the other hand, contends that there is need for a 60-bed facility as well as MJH's HIH and that between Promise, Select- Dade and Kindred, based on comparative review, its application should be approved along with MJH's application. Although Promise's need methodology supports need for more LTCH beds than would be provided by approval of its application and MJH's, its support for approval is limited to its application and that of MJH. Like Promise's methodology, Select-Dade and Kindred's need methodologies project need for many more beds than would be provided by the 60 beds each of them seek. Unlike Promise, however, neither Select-Dade nor Kindred supports approval of MJH's application. Each proposes its application to be superior to the other applications; each advocates approval of its respective application alone. Given the positions of the parties reflected in their proposed recommended orders, whether there is need for at least an additional 30 LTCH beds in District 11 is not at issue. Rather, the issues are as follows. What is the extent of the need for additional LTCH beds in District 11? If the need is for at least 30 beds but less than 60 beds, does MJH meet the criteria for approval of its application? If the need is for 60 beds or more, what application or applications should be approved depends on what applications meet CON review criteria and on the number of beds needed (60 but less than 90, 90 but less than 120, 120 but less than 150, 150 but less than 180, 180 but less than 210, and 210 or more) and whether there is health- planning basis not to grant an application even if the approval would meet a bed need and all four applicants otherwise meet review criteria. Finally, based on comparative review, what is the order of approval among the applications that meet CON need criteria? Ultimately, the issue in the case is which if any of the four applications should be approved?Of our applications for a long-term acute care hospital in Miami-Dade County, two should be approved: Miami Jewish Home`s and Select-Dade`s.

This case concerns four Certificate of Need ("CON") applications ("CONs 9891, 9992, 9893, and 9894") that seek to establish long-term acute care hospitals ("LTCHs") in Miami-Dade County (the "County" or "Miami-Dade County"), a part of AHCA District 11 (along with Monroe County). Promise Healthcare of Florida XI, Inc. ("Promise") in CON 9891, Select Specialty Hospital-Dade, Inc. ("Select-Dade") in CON 9892, and Kindred Hospitals East, L.L.C. ("Kindred"), in CON 9894, seek to construct and operate a 60-bed freestanding LTCH in the County. Miami Jewish Home and Hospital for the Aged, Inc. ("MJH"), in CON 9893, seeks to establish a 30-bed hospital within a hospital ("HIH") on its existing campus in the County. In its State Agency Action Report (the "SAAR"), AHCA concluded that all of the need methodologies presented by the applicants were unreliable. Accordingly, AHCA staff recommended denial of the four applications. The recommendation was adopted by the Agency when it issued the SAAR. The Agency maintained throughout the final hearing that all four applications should be denied, although of the four, if any were to be granted, it professed a preference for MJH on the basis, among other reasons, of a more reliable need methodology. Since the hearing the Agency has changed its position with regard to MJH. In its proposed recommended order, AHCA supports approval of MJH's application. MJH and Promise agree with the AHCA that there is need for the 30 LTCH beds proposed by MJH for its HIH and that MJH otherwise meets the criteria for approval of its application. MJH seeks approval of its application only. Likewise, the Agency supports approval of only MJH's application. Promise, on the other hand, contends that there is need for a 60-bed facility as well as MJH's HIH and that between Promise, Select- Dade and Kindred, based on comparative review, its application should be approved along with MJH's application. Although Promise's need methodology supports need for more LTCH beds than would be provided by approval of its application and MJH's, its support for approval is limited to its application and that of MJH. Like Promise's methodology, Select-Dade and Kindred's need methodologies project need for many more beds than would be provided by the 60 beds each of them seek. Unlike Promise, however, neither Select-Dade nor Kindred supports approval of MJH's application. Each proposes its application to be superior to the other applications; each advocates approval of its respective application alone. Given the positions of the parties reflected in their proposed recommended orders, whether there is need for at least an additional 30 LTCH beds in District 11 is not at issue. Rather, the issues are as follows. What is the extent of the need for additional LTCH beds in District 11? If the need is for at least 30 beds but less than 60 beds, does MJH meet the criteria for approval of its application? If the need is for 60 beds or more, what application or applications should be approved depends on what applications meet CON review criteria and on the number of beds needed (60 but less than 90, 90 but less than 120, 120 but less than 150, 150 but less than 180, 180 but less than 210, and 210 or more) and whether there is health- planning basis not to grant an application even if the approval would meet a bed need and all four applicants otherwise meet review criteria. Finally, based on comparative review, what is the order of approval among the applications that meet CON need criteria? Ultimately, the issue in the case is which if any of the four applications should be approved?Of four applications for a long-term acute care hospital in Miami-Dade County two should be approved: Miami Jewish Home`s and Select-Dade`s.

This case concerns four Certificate of Need ("CON") applications ("CONs 9891, 9992, 9893, and 9894") that seek to establish long-term acute care hospitals ("LTCHs") in Miami-Dade County (the "County" or "Miami-Dade County"), a part of AHCA District 11 (along with Monroe County). Promise Healthcare of Florida XI, Inc. ("Promise") in CON 9891, Select Specialty Hospital-Dade, Inc. ("Select-Dade") in CON 9892, and Kindred Hospitals East, L.L.C. ("Kindred"), in CON 9894, seek to construct and operate a 60-bed freestanding LTCH in the County. Miami Jewish Home and Hospital for the Aged, Inc. ("MJH"), in CON 9893, seeks to establish a 30-bed hospital within a hospital ("HIH") on its existing campus in the County. In its State Agency Action Report (the "SAAR"), AHCA concluded that all of the need methodologies presented by the applicants were unreliable. Accordingly, AHCA staff recommended denial of the four applications. The recommendation was adopted by the Agency when it issued the SAAR. The Agency maintained throughout the final hearing that all four applications should be denied, although of the four, if any were to be granted, it professed a preference for MJH on the basis, among other reasons, of a more reliable need methodology. Since the hearing the Agency has changed its position with regard to MJH. In its proposed recommended order, AHCA supports approval of MJH's application. MJH and Promise agree with the AHCA that there is need for the 30 LTCH beds proposed by MJH for its HIH and that MJH otherwise meets the criteria for approval of its application. MJH seeks approval of its application only. Likewise, the Agency supports approval of only MJH's application. Promise, on the other hand, contends that there is need for a 60-bed facility as well as MJH's HIH and that between Promise, Select- Dade and Kindred, based on comparative review, its application should be approved along with MJH's application. Although Promise's need methodology supports need for more LTCH beds than would be provided by approval of its application and MJH's, its support for approval is limited to its application and that of MJH. Like Promise's methodology, Select-Dade and Kindred's need methodologies project need for many more beds than would be provided by the 60 beds each of them seek. Unlike Promise, however, neither Select-Dade nor Kindred supports approval of MJH's application. Each proposes its application to be superior to the other applications; each advocates approval of its respective application alone. Given the positions of the parties reflected in their proposed recommended orders, whether there is need for at least an additional 30 LTCH beds in District 11 is not at issue. Rather, the issues are as follows. What is the extent of the need for additional LTCH beds in District 11? If the need is for at least 30 beds but less than 60 beds, does MJH meet the criteria for approval of its application? If the need is for 60 beds or more, what application or applications should be approved depends on what applications meet CON review criteria and on the number of beds needed (60 but less than 90, 90 but less than 120, 120 but less than 150, 150 but less than 180, 180 but less than 210, and 210 or more) and whether there is health- planning basis not to grant an application even if the approval would meet a bed need and all four applicants otherwise meet review criteria. Finally, based on comparative review, what is the order of approval among the applications that meet CON need criteria? Ultimately, the issue in the case is which if any of the four applications should be approved?Of four applications for a long-term acute care hospital in Miami-Dade County two should be approved: Miami Jewish Home`s and Select-Dade`s.

The issue in Case Number 90-5021GM is whether the Town of Indian River Shores' Comprehensive Plan adopted by Ordinance Number 386 is "in compliance," as defined in Section 163.3184(1), Florida Statutes. The issue in Case Number 92-6784GM is whether the City of Vero Beach's Comprehensive Plan adopted by Ordinance 92-21 is "in compliance," as defined in Section 163.3184(1), Florida Statutes.Plans designating density of one unit per five acres for islands was upheld. Provision requiring bridge was not in compliance.