RAMON VENEGAS v. STATE OF FLORIDA

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the relevant property was the parcel as a whole, even though it had been subdivided into nine lots
• noting that “a court must also consider [when determining the correct parcel] how both the property owner and the government treat (and have treated) the property”
• “[T]he court must assume the truth of all statements proffered by the non-movant except for conclusory allegations lacking any factual basis in the record.”
• “[T]he court must assume the truth of all statements proffered by the non-movant except for conclusory allegations lacking any factual basis in the record.”
• “[T]he court must assume the truth of all statements proffered by the non-movant except for conclusory allegations lacking any factual basis in the record.” (emphasis added)
• “[T]he court must assume the truth of all statements proffered by the non-movant except for conclusory allegations lacking any factual basis in the record.” (emphasis added)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).