de novo standard in Florida

2025“In reviewing a motion for judgment of acquittal, a de novo standard of review applies.” Pagan v. State, 830 So. 2d 792, 803 (Fla. 2002).

2024See Pagan v. State, 830 So. 2d 792, 803 (Fla. 2002) (“In reviewing a motion for judgment of acquittal, a de novo standard of review applies.”).

2024Applying the de novo standard of review to the final summary judgments, see Volusia Cnty. v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So. 2d 126, 130 (Fla. 2000) (applying the de novo standard of review to the review of final summary judgments), we affirm.

2024Applying a de novo standard of review to both claims, see Volusia Cnty. v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So. 2d 126, 130 (Fla. 2000) (noting that an order granting summary judgment is reviewed de novo); LoanFlight Lending, LLC v. Wood, 49 Fla. L.

2024Kephart v. Hadi, 932 So. 2d 1086, 1089 (Fla. 2006) (“The interpretation of a statute is a purely legal matter and therefore subject to the de novo standard of review.”).

2023To the extent the issues raised in this appeal involve analysis of section 627.7015, Florida Statutes (2021), “[t]he interpretation of a statute is a purely legal matter and therefore subject to the de novo standard of review.” Kephart v. Hadi, 932 So. 2d 1086, 1089 (Fla. 2006).

2011Analysis “Because a motion for a[JOA] presents an issue of law, the trial court’s order on the motion is reviewed on appeal by the de novo standard of review.” Jones v. State, 790 So.2d 1194, 1197 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (en banc). “[I]n reviewing an order denying a motion for a judgment of acquittal the appellate court must consider the evidence and all reasonable inferences from the evidence in a light most favorable to the state.” Id.

2011Analysis “Because a motion for a[JOA] presents an issue of law, the trial court’s order on the motion is reviewed on appeal by the de novo standard of review.” Jones v. State, 790 So.2d 1194, 1197 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (en banc). “[I]n reviewing an order denying a motion for a judgment of acquittal the appellate court must consider the evidence and all reasonable inferences from the evidence in a light most favorable to the state.” Id.

2012Consequently, a ruling on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action is reviewable on appeal by the de novo standard of review.” Sarkis v. Pafford Oil Co., Inc., 697 So.2d 524, 526 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997).

2010Consequently, a ruling on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action is reviewable on appeal by the de novo standard of review. 720 So.2d 602, 603 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (citing Sarkis v. Pafford Oil Co., Inc., 697 So.2d 524, 526 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (citations omitted)).

2025See Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 699 (1996); Presley v. State, 227 So. 3d 95, 99 (Fla. 2017); Connor v. State, 803 So. 2d 598 , 605–07 (Fla. 2001).

2025Miller v. State, 42 So. 3d 204, 220 (Fla. 2010) (quoting Connor v. State, 803 So. 2d 598, 608 (Fla. 2001)); see also Middleton v. State, 220 So. 3d 1152, 1179 (Fla. 2017) (“A trial court’s decision to deny a motion to suppress comes to th[e] [appellate] [c]ourt cloaked with a presumption that its factual findings are correct, but we apply a de novo standard of review to legal issues and mixed questions of law and fact which ultimately determine constitutional issues.”).

2022Appellants unsuccessfully sought rehearing, and the instant appeal ensued. 4 STANDARD OF REVIEW “A de novo standard of review applies when reviewing whether a party has standing to bring an action,” Boyd v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 143 So. 3d 1128, 1129 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014), and the dismissal of a complaint with prejudice, Sanchez v. County of Volusia, 331 So. 3d 853 , 854 (Fla. 5th DCA 2021).

2017“A de novo standard of review [also] applies when reviewing whether a party has standing to bring an action.” Boyd v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 143 So.3d 1128, 1129 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014).

2018Controls, Inc. v. Charles Perry Constr., Inc., 743 So. 2d 627, 630 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) ("[A] decision interpreting a contract presents an issue of law that is reviewable by the de novo standard of review.").

2005Computer Controls, Inc. v. Charles Perry Constr., Inc., 743 So.2d 627, 630 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) ("a decision interpreting a contract presents an issue of law that is reviewable by the de novo standard of review") (citations omitted).

2025“A trial court’s ruling on a motion for summary judgment is subject to a de novo standard of review.” Olsen v. First Team Ford, Ltd., 359 So. 3d 873 , 876 (Fla. 5th DCA 2023) (citing Baxter v. Northrup, 128 So. 3d 908, 910 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)).

2024“A trial court’s ruling on a motion for summary judgment is subject to a de novo standard of review.” Olsen v. First Team Ford, Ltd., 359 So. 3d 873 , 876 (Fla. 5th DCA 2023) (citing Baxter v. Northrup, 128 So. 3d 908, 910 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)).

2017“In reviewing a motion for judgment of acquittal, a de novo standard of review applies.” Pagan v. State, 830 So.2d 792, 803 (Fla. 2002) (citing Tibbs v. State, 397 So.2d 1120 (Fla. 1981)).

2010“In reviewing a motion for judgment of acquittal, a de novo standard of review applies.” Pagan v. State, 830 So.2d 792, 803 (Fla.2002) (citing Tibbs v. State, 397 So.2d 1120 (Fla.1981)).

2024ANALYSIS “Because a ruling on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action is an issue of law, it is reviewable on appeal by the de novo standard of review.” Susan Fixel, Inc. v. Rosenthal & Rosenthal, Inc., 842 So. 2d 204, 206 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003).

2021Co. v. Alonzo-Pombo, 307 So. 3d 840 , 842 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020); Susan Fixel, Inc. v. Rosenthal & Rosenthal, Inc., 842 So. 2d 204, 206 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (“Because a ruling on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action is an issue of law, it is reviewable on appeal by the de novo standard of review.”).

2013See Kirton v. Fields, 997 So.2d 349, 352 (Fla.2008) (citing D’Angelo v. Fitzmaurice, 863 So.2d 311, 314 (Fla.2003)).

2008See Engle v. Liggett Group, Inc., 945 So.2d 1246, 1259 (Fla. 2006) (concluding that a de novo standard of review is proper for a question of law) (citing D'Angelo v. Fitzmaurice, 863 So.2d 311, 314 (Fla.2003)); see also Smith v. Smith, 902 So.2d 859, 861 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) ("The standard of review regarding the trial court's construction of the rules is de novo. ").

2025See Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 699 (1996); Presley v. State, 227 So. 3d 95, 99 (Fla. 2017); Connor v. State, 803 So. 2d 598 , 605–07 (Fla. 2001).

1996NOTES [1] The 911 tape was introduced into evidence and played at the hearing on the motion to suppress. [2] Based on the recent decision of the United States Supreme Court in Ornelas , ___ U.S. at ___, 116 S.Ct. at 1663 , we follow a de novo standard of review.

2015However, “[t]he interpretation of a statute is a purely legal matter and therefore subject to the de novo standard of review.” Kephart v. Hadi, 932 So.2d 1086, 1089 (Fla.2006) (citing Armstrong v. Harris, 773 So.2d 7, 11 (Fla.2000)).

2002Armstrong v. Harris, 773 So.2d 7, 11 (Fla.2000) (“[T]he standard of review for a pure question of law is de novo”); Kaplan v. Bayer, 782 So.2d 417, 419 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (“Because interpretation of a contract is a question of law, we apply a de novo standard of review”).

2019Hammond v. DSY Developers, LLC, 951 So. 2d 985, 988 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (citing Florida Power Corp. v. City of Casselberry, 793 So. 2d 1174, 1178 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)).

2010Florida Power Corp. v. City of Casselberry, 793 So.2d 1174, 1178 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).

2018“The interpretation of a statute is a purely legal matter and therefore subject to the de novo standard of review.” Kasischke v. State, 991 So. 2d 803, 807 (Fla. 2008); see also State v. Nelson, 26 So. 3d 570 , 573–74 (Fla. 2010) (applying de novo review to the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure).

2018Analysis The “interpretation of a statute is a purely legal matter and therefore subject to the de novo standard of review.” Kasischke v. State, 991 So. 2d 803, 807 (Fla. 2008).

2016Boyd v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 143 So.3d 1128, 1129 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (citing Dixon v. Express Equity Lending Grp., LLLP, 125 So.3d 965, 967 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)).

2016Dixon v. Express Equity Lending Grp., 125 So.3d 965, 067 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018).

2015Turning to the mattér at hand, “judicial interpretation of statutes and determinations concerning the' constitutionality of statutes are pure questions of law subject to the de novo standard of review.” State v. Sigler, 967 So.2d 835, 841 (Fla.2007).

2015Turning to the matter at hand, “judicial interpretation of statutes and determinations concerning the constitutionality of statutes are pure questions of law subject to the de novo standard of review.” State v. Sigler, 967 So. 2d 835, 841 (Fla. 2007).

2004See Kaplan v. Bayer, 782 So.2d 417, 419 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (“Because interpretation of a contract is a question of law, we apply a de novo standard of review.”).

2004See Klak v. Eagles' Reserve Homeowners' Ass'n, 862 So.2d 947 , 954 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); see also Kaplan v. Bayer, 782 So.2d 417, 419 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) ("Because interpretation of a contract is a question of law, we apply a de novo standard of review.").

2009See Pagan v. State, 830 So.2d 792, 803 (Fla.2002), cert. denied, 539 U.S. 919 [ 123 S.Ct. 2278 , 156 L.Ed.2d 137 ] (2003).

2007See Pagan v. State, 830 So.2d 792, 803 (Fla.2002), cert. denied, 539 U.S. 919 , 123 S.Ct. 2278 , 156 L.Ed.2d 137 (2003).

2009See Pagan v. State, 830 So.2d 792, 803 (Fla.2002), cert. denied, 539 U.S. 919 [ 123 S.Ct. 2278 , 156 L.Ed.2d 137 ] (2003).

2007See Pagan v. State, 830 So.2d 792, 803 (Fla.2002), cert. denied, 539 U.S. 919 , 123 S.Ct. 2278 , 156 L.Ed.2d 137 (2003).

2025See Major League Baseball v. Morsani, 790 So. 2d 1071, 1074 (Fla. 2000); see also Ellsworth v. State, 89 So. 3d 1076 , 1077 n.1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) ("Judicial interpretation of [a] statute is a pure question of law and we must therefore use a de novo standard of review.").

2011Major League Baseball v. Morsani, 790 So.2d 1071, 1074 (Fla.2001) (holding that the de novo standard of review applies to a trial court’s decision to grant or deny summary final judgment); City of Hollywood v. Mulligan, 934 So.2d 1238 (Fla.2006) (applying de novo standard of review to lower court’s determination of validity of city ordinance).

2025Id.

2012“The interpretation of a written contract is a question of law” and the appellate court construes the contract “under a de novo standard of review.” Gilman Yacht Sales, Inc. v. FMB Invs., Inc., 766 So.2d 294, 296 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000).

2007In Johnston v. State, 863 So.2d 271 (Fla. 2003), the Florida Supreme Court recognized: In reviewing a motion for judgment of acquittal, a de novo standard of review applies.

2007In Johnston v. State, 863 So.2d 271, 283 (Fla.2003), the Florida Supreme Court recognized that in reviewing a motion for judgment of acquittal, a de novo standard of review applies.

2006"In reviewing a motion to dismiss, a trial court is limited to the four corners of the complaint, and it must accept all the allegations in the complaint as true." Royal & Sunalliance v. Lauderdale Marine Ctr., 877 So.2d 843, 845 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (citing Taylor v. City of Riviera Beach, 801 So.2d 259, 262 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)). "`Because a ruling on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action is an issue of law, it is reviewable on appeal by the de novo standard of review.'" Royal & Sunalliance, 877 So.2d at 845 (quoting Bell v. Indian River Mem'l Hosp., 778 So.2d 1030, 1032 (

2005"Because a ruling on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action is an issue of law, it is reviewable on appeal by the de novo standard of review." Bell v. Indian River Mem'l Hosp., 778 So.2d 1030, 1032 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).

2015Id. *814 (citing Peterson v. Asklipious, 833 So.2d 262, 263 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)); see also Sume v. State, 773 So.2d 600, 602 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (holding legal sufficiency of motion to disqualify is pure question of law subject to de novo review).

2004In Peterson v. Asklipious, 833 So.2d 262, 263-64 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002), this court summarized the standard of review and the test for reviewing a motion to disqualify: Allegations in a motion to disqualify are reviewed under a de novo standard as to whether the motion is legally sufficient as a matter of law.

2024“However, a de novo standard applies to review ‘a trial court’s conclusions of law in an order granting a new trial.’” Id. (quoting Van v. Schmidt, 122 So. 3d 243, 246 (Fla. 2013)).

2023However, “appellate courts apply a de novo standard of review to a trial court’s legal conclusions in an order granting a new trial.” Id. “[W]hen an appellate court has determined that a trial court’s grant of a new trial is premised, at least in part, on an error of law, the inquiry then becomes whether the trial court would have granted a new trial but for the error of law.” Wal Mart Stores, Inc. v. Wittke, 202 So. 3d 929, 930 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (quoting Van v. Schmidt, 122 So. 3d 243, 246 (Fla. 2013)).