DARREN O. WOOLBRIGHT, PETITIONER,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, RESPONDENT
DARREN O. WOOLBRIGHT, PETITIONER,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, RESPONDENT
834 So. 2d 878
Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (2002)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
DENIED. Moore v. Correctional Medical Services, 817 So. 2d 963 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); Smartt v. First Union National Bank, 771 So. 2d 1232 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000).
BOOTH, BENTON and Van NORTWICK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Greenspoon Marder, P.A. v. Aura Teresa Gallardo Moscoso, 114 So. 3d 327 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)…ree. As the issue presented in this appeal involves the interpretation of the amended retainer agreement entered into between the Client and Ruden McClosky, this Court’s standard of review is de novo. See Avatar Dev. Corp. v. De Pani Constr., Inc., 834 So. 2d 878, 876 n. 2 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (“The interpretation of a contract is a matter of law for the court, and is therefore a subject of de novo review.”). The amended retainer agreement provides, in pertinent part, as follows: FEES. The Firm will represen…
Authorities Cited
- Smartt v. First Union Nat'l Bank, 771 So. 2d 1232 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)
- Moore v. Corr. Med. Servs., 817 So. 2d 963 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)