PAUL ARTHUR WEIDNER, APPELLANT,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• Dep't OF Revenue v. Bunnell, 51 So. 3d 543 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)
  …m. Moreover, DOR contends that only the appropriate state agency, not the trial court, can make a determination as to TANF eligibility. We review de novo whether the trial court applied the correct legal standard. See Nelson Tree Serv. Inc. v. Gray, 978 So. 2d 198, 201 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). ANALYSIS We acknowledge at the onset, and briefly explain, the benefit misidentification of which the Department complains. As part of the Congress’ welfare reform efforts of 1996, the AFDC entitlement program was discont…
• ST. Johns Inv. Mgmt. Co. v. Albaneze, 22 So. 3d 728 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)
  …hat review of a trial court’s order granting or denying a temporary injunction is hybrid in nature: legal conclusions are reviewed de novo, while factual findings implicate the abuse of discretion standard); see also Nelson Tree Serv., Inc. v. Gray, 978 So. 2d 198, 200 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (stating that “in the instant case, the denial [of the injunction] rests on purely legal matters and is, therefore, reviewed de novo”); Carter, 9 So. 3d at 1263 (indicating that in an appellate court’s review of a trial cour…
• Murray Bieda v. Mimi Bieda, 42 So. 3d 859 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)
  …ew to the trial court’s legal conclusions. See Salamon v. Anesthesia Pain Care Consultants, Inc., 10 So. 3d 1112, 1113 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009); Bookall v. Sunbelt Rentals, Inc., 995 So. 2d 1116, 1117 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008); Nelson Tree Serv., Inc. v. Gray, 978 So. 2d 198, 200 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). Applying that standard, we reject, without further discussion, the former husband’s arguments that the motions fail to comply with Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610(a)(1). See Bansal v. Bansal, 748 So. 2d 335, 337 (Fla…

Authorities Cited

• Ward v. State, 946 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)