Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
10 Florida opinions name it 1 courts 1989–2023 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Florida courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Smith v. Smithgreen2 sentences2017See Smith v. Smith, 39 So.3d 458, 459-60 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (finding that when it is clear from the face of the final judgment that the trial court intended an equal distribution but, due to a mathematical error, the court effected an unequal distribution, reversal of the final judgment is necessary). 2013See Smith v. Smith, 39 So.3d 458, 459-60 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (reversing a mathematical error apparent on the face of the final judgment); Parker v. Parker, 976 So.2d 104,105 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (reversing an award based on a mathematical error as not supported by competent, substantial evidence); Martin v. Martin, 923 So.2d 1236, 1239 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (noting that “scrivener’s errors and miscalculations must be corrected on remand”); Doyle v. Doyle, 789 So.2d 499, 501 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (“[Notwithstanding the trial court’s wide discretion in dissolution matters, this court must correct mathe | 2 | 2 |
Poropat v. Poropatgreen1 sentence2023See Poropat v. Poropat, 54 So. 3d 507, 508 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (“[W]e reverse and remand to the trial court to correct the mathematical error which is reflected on the face of the order.” (citation omitted)). | 1 | 1 |
Bishop v. Bishopgreen1 sentence2018Lump-Sum Payment “[A] lump sum equalizing payment to accomplish equitable distribution ‘is properly awarded only when the 2 evidence reflects a justification for such an award and the ability of the paying spouse to make the payment without substantially endangering his or her economic status.’ ” Abramovic v. Abramovic, 188 So. 3d 61, 64 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (quoting Fortune v. Fortune, 61 So. 3d 441, 446 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (emphasis added) (quoting Bishop v. Bishop, 47 So. 3d 326, 331 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)). | 1 | 1 |
Ard v. Ardgreen1 sentence2018See Ard v. Ard, 765 So. 2d 106, 107 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (reversing the equitable distribution scheme solely to correct a mathematical error and otherwise affirming the equitable distribution scheme). | 1 | 1 |
Ceilia Abramovic v. Dan Abramovicgreen1 sentence2018Lump-Sum Payment “[A] lump sum equalizing payment to accomplish equitable distribution ‘is properly awarded only when the 2 evidence reflects a justification for such an award and the ability of the paying spouse to make the payment without substantially endangering his or her economic status.’ ” Abramovic v. Abramovic, 188 So. 3d 61, 64 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (quoting Fortune v. Fortune, 61 So. 3d 441, 446 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (emphasis added) (quoting Bishop v. Bishop, 47 So. 3d 326, 331 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)). | 1 | 1 |
Fortune v. Fortunegreen1 sentence2018Lump-Sum Payment “[A] lump sum equalizing payment to accomplish equitable distribution ‘is properly awarded only when the 2 evidence reflects a justification for such an award and the ability of the paying spouse to make the payment without substantially endangering his or her economic status.’ ” Abramovic v. Abramovic, 188 So. 3d 61, 64 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (quoting Fortune v. Fortune, 61 So. 3d 441, 446 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (emphasis added) (quoting Bishop v. Bishop, 47 So. 3d 326, 331 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)). | 1 | 1 |
Doyle v. Doylegreen1 sentence2013See Smith v. Smith, 39 So.3d 458, 459-60 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (reversing a mathematical error apparent on the face of the final judgment); Parker v. Parker, 976 So.2d 104,105 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (reversing an award based on a mathematical error as not supported by competent, substantial evidence); Martin v. Martin, 923 So.2d 1236, 1239 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (noting that “scrivener’s errors and miscalculations must be corrected on remand”); Doyle v. Doyle, 789 So.2d 499, 501 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (“[Notwithstanding the trial court’s wide discretion in dissolution matters, this court must correct mathe | 1 | 1 |
Martin v. Martingreen1 sentence2013See Smith v. Smith, 39 So.3d 458, 459-60 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (reversing a mathematical error apparent on the face of the final judgment); Parker v. Parker, 976 So.2d 104,105 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (reversing an award based on a mathematical error as not supported by competent, substantial evidence); Martin v. Martin, 923 So.2d 1236, 1239 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (noting that “scrivener’s errors and miscalculations must be corrected on remand”); Doyle v. Doyle, 789 So.2d 499, 501 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (“[Notwithstanding the trial court’s wide discretion in dissolution matters, this court must correct mathe | 1 | 1 |
Parker v. Parkergreen1 sentence2013See Smith v. Smith, 39 So.3d 458, 459-60 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (reversing a mathematical error apparent on the face of the final judgment); Parker v. Parker, 976 So.2d 104,105 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (reversing an award based on a mathematical error as not supported by competent, substantial evidence); Martin v. Martin, 923 So.2d 1236, 1239 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (noting that “scrivener’s errors and miscalculations must be corrected on remand”); Doyle v. Doyle, 789 So.2d 499, 501 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (“[Notwithstanding the trial court’s wide discretion in dissolution matters, this court must correct mathe | 1 | 1 |
Wingate v. Celebrity Cruisesgreen1 sentence2012Other than correcting a mathematical error, this Court affirmed the trial court’s contempt order, finding that Wingate’s argument on appeal “lacks merit.” Wingate v. Celebrity Cruises, 47 So.3d 934, 934 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010). | 1 | 1 |
Buonanno v. Buonannogreen1 sentence2010See Hindle v. Fuith, 33 So.3d 782 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010). | 1 | 1 |
Wheeler Fertilizer Co. v. Rogersgreen1 sentence1991We affirm the order under review based on a holding that the trial court had jurisdiction under Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.540(a), (b) to vacate the prior remittitur order and, in a later order, to correct "errors [in the remittitur order] arising from oversight or omission" as well as other "mistake[s] [or] inadvertence," namely, (1) a significant mathematical error in the remittitur order as to the amount of the remittitur, so as to comport with the implicit mutual agreement of the parties made in open court at the hearing on the post-trial motion for a remittitur, (2) an inadvertent vacation of the fin | 1 | 1 |
Marx v. Reddgreen1 sentence1991We affirm the order under review based on a holding that the trial court had jurisdiction under Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.540(a), (b) to vacate the prior remittitur order and, in a later order, to correct "errors [in the remittitur order] arising from oversight or omission" as well as other "mistake[s] [or] inadvertence," namely, (1) a significant mathematical error in the remittitur order as to the amount of the remittitur, so as to comport with the implicit mutual agreement of the parties made in open court at the hearing on the post-trial motion for a remittitur, (2) an inadvertent vacation of the fin | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Miles
green
1 sentence2008We herewith amend the judgment accordingly. *773 See Lamb v. State, 732 So.2d 350 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Winters v. Katseralis
green
2 sentences1996NOTES [1] The author of this opinion also wrote Winters v. Katseralis, 623 So.2d 613 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993), and concedes that it contains a mathematical error. 1996The opinion, at 623 So.2d 613, 614 , should have stated: "All things being equal, the father should pay the mother half the difference between their respective obligations, i.e., $105 per month." The general approach taken in Winters is still correct. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Marks v. Wertalka
green
1 sentence1991We affirm the order under review based on a holding that the trial court had jurisdiction under Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.540(a), (b) to vacate the prior remittitur order and, in a later order, to correct "errors [in the remittitur order] arising from oversight or omission" as well as other "mistake[s] [or] inadvertence," namely, (1) a significant mathematical error in the remittitur order as to the amount of the remittitur, so as to comport with the implicit mutual agreement of the parties made in open court at the hearing on the post-trial motion for a remittitur, (2) an inadvertent vacation of the fin | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Seaboard Coast Line R. Co. v. Burdi
green
1 sentence1989NOTES [1] The figure of $1,521,000 appears to be a mathematical error and should be $1,322,471. [2] In Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company v. Burdi, 427 So.2d 1048 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), the court held that the only recoverable element of the plaintiff's claim to future monetary losses is their present value and that the defendant did not have the burden to present testimony as to the manner in which a reduction to present value is calculated. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.