DAN JOINT VENTURE III, LP, PETITIONER,
v.
STEVEN ARMSTRONG, AN INDIVIDUAL, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Fourth District Court of Appeal denied the petition for writ of certiorari because the circuit court applied the correct law and afforded due process, and second-tier review does not permit de novo review of the record or application of law to facts.
On second-tier review of a circuit court's appellate decision, the district court is limited to determining whether due process was afforded and the correct law was applied, and cannot conduct de novo review of the record or the application of law to facts.
[1] On second-tier review of a circuit court's appellate decision, the district court is limited to reviewing whether due process was afforded and the correct law was applied…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDan Joint Venture III, LP petitioned for a writ of certiorari to review a decision of the circuit court sitting in its appellate capacity.…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Writ Of Certiorari Review cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The petition for writ of certiorari is denied. This court’s review of a decision of the circuit court sitting in its appellate capacity is limited to whether the court afforded due process and applied the correct law. See City of Deerfield Beach v. Vaillant, 419 So. 2d 624, 626 (Fla.1982).
There is no claim that the court denied due process, and it appears that the court applied the correct law. See Wilson v. Rose Printing Co., Inc., 624 So. 2d 257 (Fla.1993); Fleet Servs. Corp. v. Reise, 857 So. 2d 273 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003).
On secondtier review, this court cannot conduct a de novo review of the record, and thus does not review the application of the correct law to the facts. See Broward County v. G.B.V. Int’l, Ltd., 787 So. 2d 838, 845 (Fla.2001); see also Miami-Dade County v. Omnipoint Holdings, Inc., 863 So. 2d 195, 199 (Fla.2003) (“The district court may not review the record to determine whether the underlying ... decision is supported by competent, substantial evidence.”) (citing Fla. Power & Light Co. v. City of Dania, 761 So. 2d 1089, 1093 (Fla.2000)); Dusseau v. Metro. Dade County Bd. of County Comm’rs, 794 So. 2d 1270, 1275-76 (Fla.2001) (holding the district court erred by reviewing the evidence and making an evidentiary ruling on second-tier review).
WARNER, POLEN and GROSS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dep't of Hwy. Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Suann Ivey, 73 So. 3d 877 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)…ourt of appeal reviewing a circuit court decision on second-tier certiorari review may not conduct a de novo review of the record. See Fla. Power & Light Co. v. City of Dania, 761 So. 2d 1089, 1092 (Fla.2000); Dan Joint Venture III, LP v. Armstrong, 929 So. 2d 1186, 1186 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). Rather, the district court’s review is limited to whether the lower court afforded procedural due process, and applied the correct law. Broward County v. G.B.V. Int’l, Ltd., 787 So. 2d 838, 843-844 (Fla.2001); Haines City…
Authorities Cited
- City OF Deerfield Beach v. Vaillant, 419 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 1982)
- Broward Cnty. v. G.B.V. Int'l, Ltd., 787 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 2001)
- Fla. Power & Light Co. v. City OF Dania, 761 So. 2d 1089 (Fla. 2000)
- Dusseau v. Metro. Dade Cnty. Bd. OF Cnty. Comm'rs, 794 So. 2d 1270 (Fla. 2001)
- Miami-Dade Cnty. v. Omnipoint Holdings, Inc., 863 So. 2d 195 (Fla. 2003)
- Wilson v. Rose Printing Co., Inc., 624 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 1993)
- Britt L. Norton, SR. v. State, 857 So. 2d 273 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)