STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, AND ITS ATTORNEY, WALTER J. POSTULA, ESQUIRE, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY, APPELLANTS,
v.
MICHAEL BERRY, APPELLEE
STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, AND ITS ATTORNEY, WALTER J. POSTULA, ESQUIRE, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY, APPELLANTS,
MICHAEL BERRY, APPELLEE
679 So. 2d 824
Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (1996)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED.
GUNTHER, C.J., and SHAHOOD, J., concur. STONE, J., concurs in pari and dissents in part with opinion.
Other
STONE, Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I would reverse the entry of sanctions against Appellant’s attorney. Although counsel was alerted that the court was considering sanctions, the court did not comply with the procedural requirements of contempt, which, in my judgment, would be the only basis upon which to lawfully justify the sanctions imposed. As to the other issues raised, I concur in affirming.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rowen v. Holiday Pines Prop. Owners' Ass'n, Inc., 759 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…nc. v. Pisarski, 626 So. 2d 195 (Fla.1993), to argue that the Association lacked the requisite standing. This court’s opinion determined that the Association lacked standing, relying on Palm Point. See Holiday Pines Property Owners Ass’n v. Roiven, 679 So. 2d 824 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). We did not address any other issue in the case. Two aspects of the opinion are most curious. First, the opinion indicates that the case is “REVERSED”; the first sentence of the opinion reads, “We reverse the final judgment in f…
-
Rosalba Alcarez Nieto and Faviola Rodriguez v. Mobile Gardens Ass'n OF Englewood, Inc., 130 So. 3d 236 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)…’s right to enforce the restrictive covenants, or it is the direct successor of the developer’s interest. Palm Point Prop. Owners’ Ass’n of Charlotte Cnty., Inc. v. Pisarski, 626 So. 2d 195, 196 (Fla.1998); Holiday Pines Prop. Owners Ass’n v. Rowen, 679 So. 2d 824, 825 (Fla.4th DCA 1996). Mobile Gardens II argues that by virtue of the 2000 assignment it is the assignee of the developer, but this argument does not take into account the fact that the developer had already assigned those rights to Mobile Gardens…