P.J.Q., A JUVENILE, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
P.J.Q., A JUVENILE, APPELLANT,
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
814 So. 2d 522
Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2002)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 9 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
P.J.Q., a juvenile, appeals an order withholding adjudication of delinquency. P.J.Q contends that the court erred in failing to delineate the length of the supervisory term imposed. As the state correctly concedes, P.J.Q. is entitled to relief. Accordingly, we reverse the order and remand for clarification of the supervisory term. On remand, if the court subjects P.J.Q. to its jurisdiction for a longer period than if adjudication of delinquency had been imposed, the court is “required to fully inform the juvenile of such facts.” N.W. v. State, 767 So. 2d 446, 450 (Fla.2000).
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Found. Health v. Westside EKG Assocs., 944 So. 2d 188 (Fla. 2006)…me the significant hurdle of establishing the second element of a breach of third-party contract; that is, whether the HMO contract evinces a “clear or manifest intent” to “primarily and directly benefit” the provider. Jenne v. Church & Tower, Inc., 814 So. 2d 522, 524 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (citing Marianna Lime Prods, v. McKay, 109 Fla. 275, 147 So. 264, 265 (1933), for the proposition that the test to determining whether a party is a third-party beneficiary to a contract is whether the contract language indic…
-
Dingle v. Dellinger, 134 So. 3d 484 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014)…f the parties to the contract clearly express, or the contract itself expresses, an intent to primarily and directly benefit the third party or a class of persons to which that party claims to belong. See id.; see also Jenne v. Church & Tower, Inc., 814 So. 2d 522, 524 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (explaining that courts look to nature or terms of contract to find parties’ clear or manifest intent that it is for third party’s benefit). Thus, it is not necessary that the third-party beneficiary is named in the contract…
-
Biscayne Inv. Grp., Ltd. v. Guar. Mgmt. Servs., Inc., 903 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)…anifest intent of the contracting parties that the contract primarily and directly benefit the third party, 3) breach of the contract by a contracting party, and 4) damages to the third-party resulting from the breach. Jenne v. Church & Tower, Inc., 814 So. 2d 522, 524 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Jacobson v. Heritage Quality Constr. Co., 604 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), review dismissed, 613 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 1993). A non-party is the specifically intended beneficiary only if the contract clearly expresses an intent…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- N.W. v. State, 767 So. 2d 446 (Fla. 2000)