FULTON PERKINS, APPELLANT,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• Teca, Inc. v. Wm-Tab, Inc., 726 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
  …date of the sale or, in the alternative, the difference in value between the purchase price and the actual value at the time of the sale. U.S.B. Acquisition Co. v. Stamm, 660 So. 2d 1075, 1079 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); see also Concept, L.C. v. Gesten, 662 So. 2d 970 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). In this case there was no testimony fixing the actual value of the business on the date of the sale, a crucial element in the damage equation. Appellee’s business damages expert was an accountant who testified that the road pro…
• Earnest Stanberry, Jr. v. Escambia Cnty., 813 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)
  …. The fact that the trial court granted remittitur without providing the plaintiff the opportunity for a new trial, in violation of section 768.74(4), Florida Statutes (2001), does not make the order under review final. Cf. Concept, L.C. v. Gesten, 662 So. 2d 970, 974 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Regency Lake Apartments Assocs. v. French, 590 So. 2d 970, 975 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Lewis v. Evans, 406 So. 2d 489, 491 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); Burleson v. Stark, 357 So. 2d 1038, 1039 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); Ellis v. Golconda Cor…
• In re Est. OF Gwendolyn Gaffney Willis v. Gaffney, 677 So. 2d 949 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)
  …2d 1149, 1150-1151 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981) (citing Sodikoff). Thus, “the character of a motion will depend upon its grounds or contents, and not on its title.” Jones v. Denmark, 259 So. 2d 198, 200 n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972). Accord Concept, L.C. v. Gesten, 662 So. 2d 970, 973 n. 3 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (“Courts now sanction less preciseness in the labeling of motions, looking more to their substance.”). Although not specifically relying on this legal concept, we recognized it implicitly in Rosenthal v. Ford, 443 So.…

Authorities Cited

• Douglas v. Gilliam, 611 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
• Harris v. State, 596 So. 2d 500 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)