SIDNEY LEVY, APPELLANT,
v.
LYNN D. LEVY, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 1984-05-29
Nos. 83-925, 84-37
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and NESBITT and BASKIN, JJ.
451 So. 2d 893 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1984) Positive Treatment
Cited by 6 cases

Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

The interpretation of a contract is a matter within the purview of the trial court. That interpretation will not be reversed on appeal unless it is clearly incorrect and unsupported by the evidence. Murphy v. Murphy, 370 So. 2d 403 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert. denied, 383 So. 2d 1199 (Fla.1980). The record in this case supports the trial court’s interpretation of the agreement. Accordingly, we affirm.

Affirmed.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Levy v. Levy, 483 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
    …he effect of the parties’ settlement agreement upon Levy’s liability for post-judgment fees, has been foreclosed by Planes v. Planes, 477 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). Affirmed. . The services are reflected in part by our decision in Levy v. Levy, 451 So. 2d 893 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). . In McCallum, the court held that the trial judge had lost jurisdiction to order post-decretal attorneys’ fees, stating in part as follows: Appellant argues that a reservation of jurisdiction regarding attorneys’ fees was cont…
  • State v. Gantt, 688 So. 2d 1012 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)
    …se the defendant did not receive notice until he was rearrested, well after the expiration of the speedy trial period. See Cordero v. State, 686 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Dedolchow v. State, 675 So. 2d 955 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Clinton v. State, 451 So. 2d 893 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). To allow the state an additional fifteen days in which to bring the defendant to trial, in view of the State’s inaction, would impermissibly prejudice the defendant’s speedy trial rights. This unre-dressable injustice in contrave…
  • Winfield v. State, 503 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
    …R. Crim.P. 3.133(b). When the information was thereafter filed, notice was sent to appellant’s last known address. Appellant was no longer at that address and failed to appear at arraignment. We believe this case is controlled by Clinton v. State, 451 So. 2d 893 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), and State ex rel. Smith v. Nesbitt, 355 So. 2d 202 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). At the time the county court released appellant there was no information pending. Therefore, appellant had no obligation to notify the court of his change of…

Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw