nsion that such contact is imminent. Quilling v. Price, 894 So.2d 1061 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); Sullivan v.

of a harmful or offensive contact upon another with the intent to cause such contact or the apprehension that such contact is imminent. Quilling v. Price, 894 So.2d 1061 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); Sullivan v. Atlantic Federal Savings & Loan, 454 So.2d 52 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)("a battery consists of the inten

in any other proceeding, civil or criminal, formal or informal, where the answers might incriminate him in future criminal proceedings." Edwin v. Price, 778 F.2d 668, 669 (11 th Cir. 1985), citing Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 77, 94 S.C. 316, 322 (1973). See also Ohio v. Reiner, 532 U.S. 17, 2

m in any other proceeding, civil or criminal, formal or informal, where the answers might incriminate him in future criminal proceedings." Edwin v. Price, 778 F.2d 668, 669 (11 th Cir. 1985), citing Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 77, 94 S.C. 316, 322 (1973). See also Ohio v. Reiner, 532 U.S. 17, 21

ate him in future criminal proceedings.” Edwin v. Price, 778 F.2d 668, 669 (11th Cir. 1985)(citing Lefkow

m in any other proceeding, civil or criminal, formal or informal, where the answers might incriminate him in future criminal proceedings." Edwin v. Price, 778 F.2d 668, 669 (I Ith Cir. 1985), citing Lefkowitz v. Turley. 414 U.S. 70, 77 (1973)). The privilege is accorded "liberal construction in favor

te him in future criminal proceedings." Edwin v. Price, 778 F.2d 668, 669 (11th Cir. 1985), citing Lefko

ate him in future criminal proceedings.” Edwin v. Price, 778 F.2d 668, 669 (11th Cir. 1985)(citing Lefkow

gainst himself." (DE 242, p.5); see also Edwin v. Price, 778 F.2d 668, 669 (11th Cir. 1985) (citing Lefk

gainst himself." (DE 242, p.5); see also Edwin v. Price, 778 F.2d 668, 669 (I Ith Cir. 1985) (citing Lef

ate him in future criminal proceedings.” Edwin v. Price, 778 F.2d 668, 669 (11th Cir. 1985)(citing Case 9

in relevant part, that "[n]o person ... shall be compelled in any Criminal Case to be a witness against himself." (DE 242, p.5); see also Edwin v. Price, 778 F.2d 668, 669 (11th Cir. 1985) (citing Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 77 (1973)). The privilege is accorded liberal construction in favor

riminate him Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 480 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/04/2010 Page 2 of 10 - 3 in future criminal proceedings.” Edwin v. Price, 778 F.2d 668, 669 (11th Cir. 1985)(citing Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 77 (1973)). The privilege is accorded “liberal construction in favor o

in relevant part, that "[ n ]o person ... shall be compelled in any Criminal Case to be a witness against himself." (DE 242, p.5); see also Edwin v. Price, 778 F.2d 668, 669 (11th Cir. 1985) (citing Lefkowitz v. Turley. 414 U.S. 70, 77 (1973)). The privilege is accorded liberal construction in favor

, in relevant part, that "[n]o person ... shall be compelled in any Criminal Case to be a witness against himself." (DE 242, p.5); see also Edwin v. Price, 778 F.2d 668, 669 (11th Cir. 1985) (citing Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 77 (1973)). The privilege is accorded liberal construction in favor o

in relevant part, that "[n]o person ... shall be compelled in any Criminal Case to be a witness against himself." (DE 242, p.5); see also Edwin v. Price, 778 F.2d 668, 669 (11th Cir. 1985) (citing Lefkowitz v. Turley. 414 U.S. 70, 77 (1973)). The privilege is accorded liberal construction in favor

ormation processing. Symposium presented at the 89th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Los Angeles, CA. Goodman, G. S., Price, D. W. W., Cohen, K. M., & Haith, M. M. (1981, August). What you see is what you get: Scanning action scenes. Paper presented at the 89th Annual Con