G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases ·
…the court shall hold a limited hearing to determine whether there is probable cause to believe that the person's condition has so changed that it is safe for the person to be at large and that the person will not engage in acts of sexual violence if discharged.
at p. 1091
⚠ not in text
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Pedro Gil v. The State of Florida
applying this fundamental rule of statutory construction, we hold that the trial court was authorized under the statute to 'weigh and consider' the state's competing evaluation in assessing whether appellant met his burden of establishing probable cause.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Brian Gelish v. The State of Florida
See § 394.918(3), Fla. Stat. (2023) (“The court shall hold a limited hearing to determine whether there is probable cause to believe that the person’s condition has so changed that it is safe for the person to be at large and that the person will not engage in acts of sexual violence if discharged.”); Abaunza v. State, 278 So. 3d 207 , 210 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019) (holding that the appellate court reviews whether a trial court’s section 394.918(3) probable cause determination is supported by competent, substantial evidence); Barron v. State, 217 So. 3d 1088, 1091 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (holdin…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Eric Boyington v. The State of Florida
See § 394.918(3), Fla. Stat. (2023) (“The court shall hold a limited hearing to determine whether there is probable cause to believe that the person’s condition has so changed that it is safe for the person to be at large and that the person will not engage in acts of sexual violence if discharged.”); Abaunza v. State, 278 So. 3d 207 , 210 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019) (holding that the appellate court reviews whether a trial court’s section 394.918(3) probable cause determination is supported by competent, substantial evidence); Barron v. State, 217 So. 3d 1088, 1091 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (holdin…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
DOLPHUS DONALDSON v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA
See Abaunza v. State, 278 So. 3d 207 , 210 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019) (explaining that standard of review is limited to whether trial court’s conclusion is supported by competent substantial evidence); Barron v. State, 217 So. 3d 1088, 1091 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (noting that under section 394.918(3), Fla. Stat., as amended in 2014, a trial court is authorized to “weigh and consider” conflicting evidence in a probable cause hearing under the Sexually Violent Predators Act). 2
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Alvaro Ignacio Abaunza v. State of Florida
That changed with the 2014 amendment, as the Third District explained in Barron v. State, 217 So. 3d 1088, 1091 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017): In 2014, the Florida Legislature amended section 394.918(3).
discussed
Cited "see"
JUAN FRANCISCO VEGA v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA
See Barron v. State, 217 So. 3d 1088, 1091 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (allowing trial court to weigh and consider competing expert testimony to determine if the probable cause threshold is met); see also Vega v. Dep't of Child. and Fams., 215 So. 3d 193 , 194 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (“The trial court properly found the statute at issue to be constitutional.”); see also Anderson v. State, 93 So. 3d 1201, 1209 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (Padovano, J., concurring) (“It is doubtful that the statute of limitations can be applied at all in a Jimmy Ryce Act proceeding, as there is no point at which the action can …
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Charbel ABUD
v.
Maria Isabel SAAD and Gabriella Alegre
v.
Maria Isabel SAAD and Gabriella Alegre
No. 3D16-2435.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Apr 5, 2017.
Carrillo & Carrillo, Pedro R. Carrillo and Felix R. Carrillo; Arnaldo Velez, for appellant., Alexis Gonzalez and Gustavo Sardiña, for appellees.
Emas, Logue, Luck.
Published
EMAS, J.
The case below involved an action for breach of contract and declaratory judgment, following an unconsummated real estate transaction between Charbel Abud (the Seller) and Maria Isabel Saad and Gabriella Alegre (the Buyers). Following discovery, both sides filed motions for summary judgment and, following a hearing, the trial court entered final summary judgment in favor of the Buyers.
Upon our de novo review, Volusia County v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So.2d 126 (Fla. 2000), we affirm, holding that the trial court correctly determined there were no material issues of disputed fact and that, as a matter of law, the Buyers’ communications with the Seller constituted timely and proper cancellation of the contract pursuant to its terms.
Affirmed.