Cases

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING Upon consideration, petitioner’s motion for rehearing is hereby denied. Levy and Goderich, JJ., concur. Cope, J., concurs in the denial and states that this ruling does not prevent petitioner from seeking further relief in an appropriate court in the event the Department of Corrections fails to remove the detainer upon being advised that the State nolle prossed the charge.

31 So.3d 304 (2010) Michael C. ADDISON and Richard T. Petitt, for themselves and all others similarly situated, Appellants, v. CITY OF TAMPA, Florida, Individually, and as representative of all other Florida municipalities similarly situated, Appellee. No. 2D09-3574. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District. April 7, 2010. F. Wallace Pope, Jr., of Johnso

67 So.3d 293 (2011) CITY NATIONAL BANK OF FLORIDA and Citivest Construction Corporation, Appellants, v. CITY OF TAMPA, a Florida municipal corporation, Appellee. No. 2D10-332. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District. April 6, 2011. *294 Scott A. McLaren of Hill, Ward & Henderson, P.A., Tampa, and Thomas A. Burns

33 So.3d 742 (2010) Michael C. ADDISON and Richard T. Petitt, for themselves and all others similarly situated, Appellants, v. CITY OF TAMPA, Florida, Individually, and as representative of all other Florida municipalities similarly situated; Fourteen Non-Hillsborough Defendants; and The Florida League of Cities, Appellees. No. 2D09-1968. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

PER CURIAM: Judith Herskowitz, proceeding pro se, appeals the dismissal of her action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On appeal, Herskowitz argues that the district court was without jurisdiction to grant the motion to dismiss because the party who *912filed it died during the pendency of the case and no formal suggestion of death was filed, pursuant

933 So.2d 1136 (2006) In re REPORT OF THE COMMISSION ON DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY-RULE OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION 2.035. No. SC06-397. Supreme Court of Florida. July 6, 2006. The Honorable Martha C. Warner, Chair, Commission on District Court of Appeal Performance and Accountability, West Palm Beach, FL, Gary Devenow Fox, Chair, Rules of Judici

PARIENTE, C.J. In this case, we adopt a rule of judicial administration that will help this Court determine the necessity for increasing, decreasing, or redefining appellate districts.1 The new rule is the culmination of the work of the Supreme Court’s Committee on District Court of Appeal Workload and Jurisdiction (Workload and Jurisdiction Committee). The Workload and Jurisdiction Committee consi

PER CURIAM. By its order of November 14, 1997, in case number 89,541, the Supreme Court transferred the petition for writ of mandamus, filed by Hett against this court and Judges Schoonover, Frank and Quince, as respondents, to this court on the basis that “the issues involved ... are matters within the jurisdiction of the District Court of Appeal, Second District.” Upon review of that petition, in what is now ease number 97

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge TATEL. Opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment filed by Circuit Judge SENTELLE. TATEL, Circuit Judge: In this wage discrimination action, the district court found that neither plaintiff established a prima facie case and granted summary judgment for the employer. Although we agree with the district court with respect to one