Rochester & Godell Engineers, Inc. v. Florida State Turnpike Authority

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that appellant's claim his sentence was excessive did not raise a substantial question, where he failed to challenge a specific provision of the sentencing scheme, or cite to a fundamental norm underlying the sentencing process that he believed was violated
• affirming that defendant engaged in indecent contact with a minor by licking the backs of her legs from her ankles to just under her buttocks
• finding that the back of a person’s legs fell within the definition of ‘other intimate parts’
• stating that “areas of the body other than the genitalia, buttocks, or breasts can be intimate parts of the body….”
• concluding that appellant’s claim that his sentence was excessive did not raise a substantial question, where he failed to challenge a specific provision of the sentencing scheme, or cite to a fundamental norm underlying the sentencing process that he believed was violated
• stating that “a bald assertion that a sentence is excessive does not by itself raise a substantial question justifying this Court's review of the merits of the underlying claim.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).