V.L. WALKER CO., INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
JERRY OSCAR PUGH AND LISA PUGH, APPELLEES
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Appellate Review Standards cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Gupton v. Village Key & Saw Shop Inc., 656 So. 2d 475, 478 (Fla.1995)(party cannot successfully complain about an error for which it is responsible.); Markham v. Fogg, 458 So. 2d 1122, 1126 (Fla. 1984)(appellate court should not substitute its judgment for that of the trier of fact as long as there is competent substantial evidence); City of Miami v. Carter, 105 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 1958)(trial judge has discretion in balancing the equities between pai'ties in cases involving equitable accounting); Zerquera v. Centennial Homeowners’ Ass’n, Inc., 721 So. 2d 751 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)(in a bench trial, judge’s findings of fact will not be disturbed unless totally unsupported by competent and substantial evidence); Dreyfuss v. Dreyfuss, 701 So. 2d 437, 440 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)(appellate court has the duty to affirm trial court findings supported by competent substantial evidence); Marrone v. Miami Nat’l Bank, 507 So. 2d 652 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)(trial court must evaluate and weigh conflicting testimony after observing the credibility of the witness).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sarmiento v. State, 816 So. 2d 826 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)…of his property seized during his arrest where, as here, the petition was not timely filed within sixty (60) days after the conclusion of the criminal proceeding as is required by section 705.105(1), Fla. Stat. (1997); see Romero-Saavedra v. State, 735 So. 2d 1290 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) and Crutchley v. Brevard County Sheriff’s Office, 688 So. 2d 371 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); and where civil forfeiture proceedings against the property were pending at the time of the filing of the petition. See City of Miami v. Barclay…
-
Watkins v. State, 230 So. 3d 1244 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)…rty permanently vests in the law enforcement agency, i.e., at least 60 days prior to the “conclusion of the proceeding.” Thus, a motion filed more than sixty days after the conclusion of the criminal proceeding is untimely. Romero-Saavedra v. State, 735 So. 2d 1290, 1290-1291 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). In this case, the State argues that the proceedings in Watkins’s. criminal case were concluded on April 13, 2015, when the State dismissed’ the criminal charges against Watkins; therefore, the State argues, Watkins’s…
-
Holmes v. State, 997 So. 2d 1184 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)…Statutes], the court is obliged to attach portions of the record showing that the property was seized pursuant to a lawful investigation or held as evidence.”); Gonzalez v. State, 786 So. 2d 680, 681 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); cf. Romero-Saavedra v. State, 735 So. 2d 1290 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (finding untimely defendant’s petition to return currency seized as evidence). Accordingly, we affirm without prejudice for Holmes to file a facially sufficient motion.…
Authorities Cited
- Gupton v. Vill. KEY & SAW Shop, Inc., 656 So. 2d 475 (Fla. 1995)
- Markham v. E.C. Fogg, III, 458 So. 2d 1122 (Fla. 1984)
- Carmine Marrone v. Miami Nat'l Bank, 507 So. 2d 652 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- The City OF Miami v. Carter, 105 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 1958)
- Dreyfuss v. Jacques F. Dreyfuss & Brickell Earth Station, Inc., 701 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)
- Zerquera v. Centennial Homeowners' Ass'n, Inc., 721 So. 2d 751 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)