11. Supreme Court of Florida sleep study
snoring solutions snoring solutions [Group:"492 F. Supp. 2d 1360"]LNI:4P49-7NT0-TXFP-K2HN-00000-00 However, the county court granted Degrossi's motion to stay the revocation, and then issued a rule to show cause when the Department failed to comply with the stay order. Although the trial court was aware of Section 322.28(6), Florida Statutes (1995) which states that, "no suspension or revocation of a driving privilege shall be stayed upon appeal of the conviction or order that resulted therein," the trial court ordered the Department to stay the five year driver license revocation pending appeal. The trial court then certified this question of great public importance.
Sharp, W., CJ., Dauksch, Orfinger, Cowart, Daniel and Goshorn, JJ., concur. Counsel Cynthia Z. Mackinnon and Linda S. Bols of Fisher, Rushmer, Werrenrath, Keiner, Wack & Dickson, P.A., Orlando, for Appellant. snore
sleep apnea snoring solutions The pediatrician's settlement agreement is the focus of several arguments on appeal. Pursuant to the agreement, the pediatrician agreed to pay his policy limits of $ 500,000 to the DeBerrys in exchange for their promise not to enforce any judgment which might be obtained against him in excess of this amount. The agreement, however, required that the pediatrician remain a defendant in the case and defend his actions in order to prevent the obstetrician from advancing an "empty chair" argument. The settlement contained a provision requiring the DeBerrys to reimburse the pediatrician $ 450,000 in the event they received a verdict between $ 3,000,000 and $ 10,000,000. Further, if the verdict exceeded $ 10,000,000, the DeBerrys were obligated to refund the sum of $ 495,000. Reversed and remanded.
