Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Department of Revenue v. M.J.M.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided April 28, 2017No. Case No. 2D15-3246Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partWallace, Judge

I concur in part and dissent in part. I agree with the conclusión reached in section IIA of the majority opinion. However, if we were writing on a clean slate, I would adopt the approach taken by the First District in Hooks. Under an analysis of the facts of this case based on Hooks, the conclusion that M.J.M. failed to act with due diligence and did not satisfy the newly discovered evidence requirement of section 742.18 would be inescapable. Nevertheless, I acknowledge that this court’s decision in P.G. is binding on this panel. The majority properly applies the approach taken by this court…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Correa v. U.S. Bank National Ass'nDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2013
  2. Morton's of Chicago, Inc. v. LiraDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2010
  3. State of Florida, Dept. of Revenue v. Kyle Patrick AlletagDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2015
  4. State, Department of Revenue v. HartsellDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2016

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API