upon principle in Florida

1973In Orlando Orange Groves Co. v. Hale, 119 Fla. 159 , 161 So. 284, 295 (1935), the Supreme Court said: "This court is committed to the doctrine that where the terms of a written contract are in any respect uncertain or doubtful and the parties thereto have by their conduct placed a construction upon the contract which is reasonable, such construction will be adopted by the court upon the principle that it is the duty of the court to give effect to the intention of the parties where it is not wholly at variance with the principles of correct legal interpretation of the terms of the contract." Se

1965The court said: # i}i * * * “In Orlando Orange Groves Co. v. Hale, 119 Fla. 159 , 161 So. 284, 295 , the Supreme Court of Florida said: “ ‘This court is committed to the doctrine that where the terms of a written contract are in any respect uncertain or doubtful and the parties thereto have by their conduct placed a construction upon the contract which is reasonable, such construction will be adopted by the court upon the principle that it is the duty of the court to give effect to the intention of the parties where it is not wholly at variance with the principles of correct legal interpretati

1965The court said: # i}i * * * “In Orlando Orange Groves Co. v. Hale, 119 Fla. 159 , 161 So. 284, 295 , the Supreme Court of Florida said: “ ‘This court is committed to the doctrine that where the terms of a written contract are in any respect uncertain or doubtful and the parties thereto have by their conduct placed a construction upon the contract which is reasonable, such construction will be adopted by the court upon the principle that it is the duty of the court to give effect to the intention of the parties where it is not wholly at variance with the principles of correct legal interpretati

1965The court said: # i}i * * * “In Orlando Orange Groves Co. v. Hale, 119 Fla. 159 , 161 So. 284, 295 , the Supreme Court of Florida said: “ ‘This court is committed to the doctrine that where the terms of a written contract are in any respect uncertain or doubtful and the parties thereto have by their conduct placed a construction upon the contract which is reasonable, such construction will be adopted by the court upon the principle that it is the duty of the court to give effect to the intention of the parties where it is not wholly at variance with the principles of correct legal interpretati

1965The court said: # i}i * * * “In Orlando Orange Groves Co. v. Hale, 119 Fla. 159 , 161 So. 284, 295 , the Supreme Court of Florida said: “ ‘This court is committed to the doctrine that where the terms of a written contract are in any respect uncertain or doubtful and the parties thereto have by their conduct placed a construction upon the contract which is reasonable, such construction will be adopted by the court upon the principle that it is the duty of the court to give effect to the intention of the parties where it is not wholly at variance with the principles of correct legal interpretati

1962In Orlando Orange Groves Co. v. Hale, 119 Fla. 159 , 161 So. 284, 295 , the Supreme Court of Florida said: "This court is committed to the doctrine that where the terms of a written contract are in any respect uncertain or doubtful and the parties thereto have by their conduct placed a construction upon the contract which is reasonable, such construction will be adopted by the court upon the principle that it is the duty of the court to give effect to the intention of the parties where it is not wholly at variance with the principles of correct legal interpretation of the terms of the contract

1965The court said: # i}i * * * “In Orlando Orange Groves Co. v. Hale, 119 Fla. 159 , 161 So. 284, 295 , the Supreme Court of Florida said: “ ‘This court is committed to the doctrine that where the terms of a written contract are in any respect uncertain or doubtful and the parties thereto have by their conduct placed a construction upon the contract which is reasonable, such construction will be adopted by the court upon the principle that it is the duty of the court to give effect to the intention of the parties where it is not wholly at variance with the principles of correct legal interpretati

1962In Orlando Orange Groves Co. v. Hale, 119 Fla. 159 , 161 So. 284, 295 , the Supreme Court of Florida said: "This court is committed to the doctrine that where the terms of a written contract are in any respect uncertain or doubtful and the parties thereto have by their conduct placed a construction upon the contract which is reasonable, such construction will be adopted by the court upon the principle that it is the duty of the court to give effect to the intention of the parties where it is not wholly at variance with the principles of correct legal interpretation of the terms of the contract

1965The court said: # i}i * * * “In Orlando Orange Groves Co. v. Hale, 119 Fla. 159 , 161 So. 284, 295 , the Supreme Court of Florida said: “ ‘This court is committed to the doctrine that where the terms of a written contract are in any respect uncertain or doubtful and the parties thereto have by their conduct placed a construction upon the contract which is reasonable, such construction will be adopted by the court upon the principle that it is the duty of the court to give effect to the intention of the parties where it is not wholly at variance with the principles of correct legal interpretati

1962In Orlando Orange Groves Co. v. Hale, 119 Fla. 159 , 161 So. 284, 295 , the Supreme Court of Florida said: "This court is committed to the doctrine that where the terms of a written contract are in any respect uncertain or doubtful and the parties thereto have by their conduct placed a construction upon the contract which is reasonable, such construction will be adopted by the court upon the principle that it is the duty of the court to give effect to the intention of the parties where it is not wholly at variance with the principles of correct legal interpretation of the terms of the contract

1939Rep. 807 : “ ‘AVhen the terms of a written contract are in any re *51 spect doubtful or uncertain, or if the contract contains no provisions on a given point, or if it fails to define with certainty the duties of the parties with respect to a particular matter, or in a given emergency, and the parties to it have by their conduct placed a construction upon it which is reasonable, such construction will be adopted by the court upon the principle that it is the duty of the court to give effect to the intention of the parties where it is not wholly at variance with the correct legal interpretation

1935Webster v. Clark, 34 Fla. 637 , 16 So. 601 , 27 L.

2000When a judge renders a final judgment of conviction, withholds adjudication of guilt after a verdict of guilty, imposes a sentence, grants probation, or revokes probation, the judge shall forthwith inform the defendant concerning the rights of appeal therefrom, including the time allowed by law for taking an appeal. [2] The statutory authority for rule 3.670 is found in section 948.01(2), Florida Statutes (1997), which provides: If it appears to the court upon a hearing of the matter that the defendant is not likely again to engage in a criminal course of conduct and that the ends of justice a

1991See generally, BMW of North America, Inc. v. Krathen, 471 So.2d 585 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), rev. denied, 484 So.2d 7 (Fla.1986); Maryland Casualty Co. v. Krasnek, 174 So.2d 541 (Fla.1965); Orkin Exterminating Co., Inc. v. Palm Beach Hotel Condominium Ass’n, Inc., 454 So.2d 697 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Pennsylvania Nat’l Mut.

1991See generally, BMW of North America, Inc. v. Krathen, 471 So.2d 585 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), rev. denied, 484 So.2d 7 (Fla.1986); Maryland Casualty Co. v. Krasnek, 174 So.2d 541 (Fla.1965); Orkin Exterminating Co., Inc. v. Palm Beach Hotel Condominium Ass’n, Inc., 454 So.2d 697 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Pennsylvania Nat’l Mut.

1991McCaskill; James v. State, 499 So.2d 24 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).

1988Dozier v. Wood, 431 So.2d 184 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983).

1983In summary, to allow as a defense to a probation violation stemming from the commission of a crime the probationer’s lack of knowledge regarding his probationary status would “make a mockery of the very philosophy underlying the concept of probation, namely that given a second chance to live within the rules of society and the law of the land, one will prove that he will thereafter do so and become a useful member of society.” Martin v. State, 243 So.2d 189, 191 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied, 247 So.2d 63 (Fla.1971).

1973Teague Furniture Co., 100 Fla. 972 , 130 So. 432 (1930); Durham Tropical Land Corp. v. Sun Garden Sales Co., 106 Fla. 429 , 138 So. 21 , 143 So. 758 , 151 So. 327 (1931); Consolidated Development and Eng.

1973Teague Furniture Co., 100 Fla. 972 , 130 So. 432 (1930); Durham Tropical Land Corp. v. Sun Garden Sales Co., 106 Fla. 429 , 138 So. 21 , 143 So. 758 , 151 So. 327 (1931); Consolidated Development and Eng.

1973Teague Furniture Co., 100 Fla. 972 , 130 So. 432 (1930); Durham Tropical Land Corp. v. Sun Garden Sales Co., 106 Fla. 429 , 138 So. 21 , 143 So. 758 , 151 So. 327 (1931); Consolidated Development and Eng.

1973Teague Furniture Co., 100 Fla. 972 , 130 So. 432 (1930); Durham Tropical Land Corp. v. Sun Garden Sales Co., 106 Fla. 429 , 138 So. 21 , 143 So. 758 , 151 So. 327 (1931); Consolidated Development and Eng.

1973Teague Furniture Co., 100 Fla. 972 , 130 So. 432 (1930); Durham Tropical Land Corp. v. Sun Garden Sales Co., 106 Fla. 429 , 138 So. 21 , 143 So. 758 , 151 So. 327 (1931); Consolidated Development and Eng.

1966Monsalvatge & Co. of Miami, Inc. v. Ryder Leasing, Inc. (Fla.App.1963), 151 So.2d 453, 455 . . 4 Moore’s Federal Practice 1653, § 26.29, (2d ed.).

1964Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 , 58 S.Ct. 1019 , 82 L.Ed. 1461 , (1938)." We do not rule on this point as it is a proper subject for determination by the trial court upon hearing the petition.

1964Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 , 58 S.Ct. 1019 , 82 L.Ed. 1461 , (1938)." We do not rule on this point as it is a proper subject for determination by the trial court upon hearing the petition.

1964That the witness is dead; * * *." Rule 1.21 — 1954 Rules of Civil Procedure. [2] 10 Fla.Jur., Depositions, § 30, p. 206. [3] Hoffler v. Wheeler (D.C. 1962), 179 A.2d 909 . [4] Inland Bonding Co. v. Mainland Nat.

1960Frederick v. Yellow Cab Company of Philadelphia, 3 Cir., 200 F.2d 483 .

1955Rheinauer v. Malone, 40 Fla. 129 , 23 So. 575 , 577, wherein the trial court had jurisdiction of the subject matter of the suit and we held that an adverse ruling by the trial court upon a challenge to the court’s jurisdiction over the person of the defendant-petitioner, based upon an alleged insufficiency of service of process, was a ruling “within the sphere of its jurisdiction” and, therefore, even if that decision were assumed to be wrong; “it would afford no ground for the issuance of a writ of prohibition, as the remedy to correct such an erroneous ruling is plain and adequate, by writ o

1955Rheinauer v. Malone, 40 Fla. 129 , 23 So. 575 , 577, wherein the trial court had jurisdiction of the subject matter of the suit and we held that an adverse ruling by the trial court upon a challenge to the court’s jurisdiction over the person of the defendant-petitioner, based upon an alleged insufficiency of service of process, was a ruling “within the sphere of its jurisdiction” and, therefore, even if that decision were assumed to be wrong; “it would afford no ground for the issuance of a writ of prohibition, as the remedy to correct such an erroneous ruling is plain and adequate, by writ o

1955Rheinauer v. Malone, 40 Fla. 129 , 23 So. 575 , 577, wherein the trial court had jurisdiction of the subject matter of the suit and we held that an adverse ruling by the trial court upon a challenge to the court’s jurisdiction over the person of the defendant-petitioner, based upon an alleged insufficiency of service of process, was a ruling “within the sphere of its jurisdiction” and, therefore, even if that decision were assumed to be wrong; “it would afford no ground for the issuance of a writ of prohibition, as the remedy to correct such an erroneous ruling is plain and adequate, by writ o

1949We are requested to hold Section 40.01 (1), F.S.A., unconstitutional under Ballard v. United States, 329 U.S. 187 , 67 S.Ct. 261 , 91 L.Ed. 181 , and Thiel v. Southern Pacific Co., 328 U.S. 217 , 66 S.Ct. 984 , 90 L.Ed. 1181 , 166 A.L.R. 1412 .

1949We are requested to hold Section 40.01 (1), F.S.A., unconstitutional under Ballard v. United States, 329 U.S. 187 , 67 S.Ct. 261 , 91 L.Ed. 181 , and Thiel v. Southern Pacific Co., 328 U.S. 217 , 66 S.Ct. 984 , 90 L.Ed. 1181 , 166 A.L.R. 1412 .

1949We are requested to hold Section 40.01 (1), F.S.A., unconstitutional under Ballard v. United States, 329 U.S. 187 , 67 S.Ct. 261 , 91 L.Ed. 181 , and Thiel v. Southern Pacific Co., 328 U.S. 217 , 66 S.Ct. 984 , 90 L.Ed. 1181 , 166 A.L.R. 1412 .

1949We are requested to hold Section 40.01 (1), F.S.A., unconstitutional under Ballard v. United States, 329 U.S. 187 , 67 S.Ct. 261 , 91 L.Ed. 181 , and Thiel v. Southern Pacific Co., 328 U.S. 217 , 66 S.Ct. 984 , 90 L.Ed. 1181 , 166 A.L.R. 1412 .