D & T Properties v. Marina Grande Assoc. (2008)
green
· 14 citation events
across 3 courts.
Showing the 8 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
green
Dr. Ross G. Stone v. Nancy Stone and Alma Stone (2014)
Ass’n v. Devon Neighborhood Ass’n, 67 So.3d 187, 195 (Fla.2011) (explaining that a statute is presumed not to have retroactive application, but the presumption is rebut-table by clear evidence that the legislature intended that the statute be applied retroactively); D & T Props., Inc. v. Marina Grande Assocs., Ltd., 985 So.2d 43, 47-48 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (finding that an express legislative statement that a statute is intended “to clarify existing law” should be taken as st…
finding that an express legislative statement that a statute is intended “to clarify existing law” should be taken as strong evidence of legislative intent that the statute should apply retroactively
See D & T Props., Inc. v. Marina Grande Assocs., Ltd., 985 So.2d 43, 47 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (“Where the legislature expressly characterizes the intent of legislation, it is especially appropriate to consider the amended statute to determine the original legislative intent of the statute.”); see also Ch. 2013-137, § 8, Laws of Fla. (“[T]he amendments to s. 702.10, Florida Statutes, ... by this act, apply to causes of action pending on the effective date of this act.”).
“Where the legislature expressly characterizes the intent of legislation, it is especially appropriate to consider the amended statute to determine the original legislative intent of the statute.”
green
Scarfone v. P.C.-Plantation, LLP (2011)
A change to an offering is material where a reasonable buyer would find the change “ ‘so significant that it would alter the buyer’s decision to enter into the contract.’ ” Mastaler v. Hollywood Ocean Grp., L.L.C., 10 So.3d 1114, 1116 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (quoting D & T Props., Inc. v. Marina Grande Assocs., Ltd., 985 So.2d 43, 49 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)).
green
Mastaler v. Hollywood Ocean Group, L.L.C. (2009)
As included in the Purchase Agreement, section 718.503(l)(a)(l) provides that an “AGREEMENT IS [] VOIDABLE BY BUYER BY DELIVERING WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE BUYER’S INTENTION TO CANCEL WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF' *1116 RECEIPT FROM THE DEVELOPER OF ANY AMENDMENT WHICH MATERIALLY ALTERS OR MODIFIES THE OFFERING IN A MANNER THAT IS ADVERSE TO THE BUYER.” A change to a purchase agreement is material if a “reasonable buyer under the purchase agreement [would] find the change to…
green
STATE OF FLORIDA v. ANDREW SCOTT CROSE (2024)
See, e.g., D & T Props., Inc. v. Marina Grande Assocs., 985 So. 2d 43, 48 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (reasoning that the statutory amendments "did not nullify the plain language of earlier legislation" where "[t]he legislation clarified an ambiguity in earlier legislation").
reasoning that the statutory amendments "did not nullify the plain language of earlier legislation" where "[t]he legislation clarified an ambiguity in earlier legislation"
See D & T Properties, Inc., 985 So.2d at 49 . .
See D & T Properties, Inc. v. Marina Grande Associates, LTD., 985 So.2d 43, 49 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). 103 .
See D & T Props., Inc. v. Marina Grande Assocs., Ltd., 985 So.2d 43, 47 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (citing Finley v. Scott, 707 So.2d *46 1112, 1116 (Fla.1998)) (“Where the legislature expressly characterizes the intent of legislation, it is especially appropriate to consider the amended statute to detennine the original legislative intent of the statute.”); see also Lowry v. Parole & Probation Comm’n, 473 So.2d 1248, 1250 (Fla.1985) (stating that where “an amendment to a statute i…
citing Finley v. Scott, 707 So.2d *46 1112, 1116 (Fla.1998)