KENNETH WIGNER, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
KENNETH WIGNER, APPELLANT,
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
105 So. 3d 646
Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (2013)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Opinion of the Court
AFFIRMED. See State v. Adkins, 96 So.3d 412 (Fla.2012); Flagg v. State, 74 So.3d 138 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011), review denied, 104 So.3d 1083 (Fla.2012).
BENTON, C.J., DAVIS, and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Goldman v. Lustig, 237 So. 3d 381 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)
-
Evergreen Cmtys., Inc. v. Palafox Preserve Homeowners' Ass'n, Inc., 213 So. 3d 1127 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)…o restrict the future use of the property to that particular development and use; instead, such a statement “does nothing more than explain why the enumerated restrictions were imposed.” Orlando Lake Forest Joint Venture v. Lake Forest Master Cmty., 105 So. 3d 646, 648 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013). Here, we find language in the declaration of covenants and restrictions that expressed the developer’s personal intent to develop the property for commereial use is ambiguous as to whether the developer intended to create…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Adkins, 96 So. 3d 412 (Fla. 2012)
- Flagg v. State, 74 So. 3d 138 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)
- Holmes v. State, 74 So. 3d 138 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)