LINN-WELL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ET AL., PETITIONERS,
v.
PRESTON & FARLEY, INC., ET AL., RESPONDENTS
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Economic Loss Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
SHAW, Justice.
We have for review a decision ruling on the following question certified to be of great public importance:
IS A BUYER OF COMMERCIAL PROPERTY PREVENTED BY THE “ECONOMIC LOSS RULE” FROM RECOVERING DAMAGES FOR FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT AGAINST THE REAL ESTATE AGENT AND ITS INDIVIDUAL AGENT REPRESENTING THE SELLERS?
Linn-Well Dev. Corp. v. Preston & Farley, Inc., 666 So. 2d 558 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. This question is controlled by PK Ventures, Inc. v. Raymond James & Associates, 690 So. 2d 1296 (Fla.1997). We quash Linn-Well and remand for proceedings consistent with PK Ventures, and for consideration of Preston & Farley’s alternative arguments for affirmance of the trial court’s final summary judgment.
It is so ordered.
KOGAN, C.J., and OVERTON, GRIMES, HARDING, WELLS and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (107 total)
-
Seburt Nelson Connor v. State, 803 So. 2d 598 (Fla. 2001)…718 So. 2d 144 (Fla.1998). A trial court’s conclusion regarding an aggravator should be upheld if the trial court applied the correct rule of law and the trial court’s findings are supported by competent, substantial evidence. See Willacy v. State, 696 So. 2d 693, 696 (Fla.1997). The State argues that the evidence in the record establishes that the sole or dominant motive for the murder of Jessica case was to avoid arrest. The State asserts that Jessica returned home when Connor was in the process of cleani…
-
Donald B. Banks v. State, 732 So. 2d 1065 (Fla. 1999)…he trial court judge. § 921.001, Fla. Stat. (1995). We note that this “preponderance of the evidence” standard is a standard of proof for the trial cqurt to apply, not a standard of review for the appellate court to impose. . Cf. Willacy v. State, 696 So. 2d 693 (Fla.), cert. denied,-U.S.-, 118 S.Ct. 419, 139 L.Ed.2d 321 (1997) (applying the same standard of review to the trial court’s finding concerning aggravating circumstances in capital cases). . This Court in Tibbs v. State, 397 So. 2d 1120 (Fla. 1981…
-
Urbin v. State, 714 So. 2d 411 (Fla. 1998)…s relating to whether an aggravation has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, we should defer to the trial judge, who was in the courtroom and had an opportunity to judge the credibility of the witnesses. As we recently stated in Willacy v. State, 696 So. 2d 693 (Fla.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 118 S.Ct. 419, 139 L.Ed.2d 321 (1997): [I]t is not this Court’s function to reweigh the evidence to determine whether the State proved each aggravating circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt — that is the trial court…
Previewing 3 of 107 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- PK Ventures, Inc. v. Raymond James & Assocs., Inc., 690 So. 2d 1296 (Fla. 1997)
- Moncer v. State, 666 So. 2d 558 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Linn-Well Dev. Corp. v. Preston & Farley, Inc., 666 So. 2d 558 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)