competent substantial evidence standard in Florida

2004In Blanco v. State, 706 So.2d 7 (Fla.1997), we summarized our standards of review of the trial court's findings as follows: 1) Whether a particular circumstance is truly mitigating in nature is a question of law and subject to de novo review by this Court; 2) whether a mitigating circumstance has been established by the evidence in a given case is a question of fact and subject to the competent substantial evidence standard; and finally, 3) the weight assigned to a mitigating circumstance is within the trial court's discretion and subject to the abuse of discretion standard.

2000(Footnotes omitted.) In Blanco v. State, 706 So.2d 7, 10 (Fla. 1997) (footnotes omitted), this Court summarized the Campbell standards of review for mitigating circumstances: The Court in Campbell ... established relevant standards of review for mitigating circumstances: 1) Whether a particular circumstance is truly mitigating in nature is a question of law and subject to de novo review by this Court; 2) whether a mitigating circumstance has been established by the evidence in a given case is a question of fact and subject to the competent substantial evidence standard; and finally, 3) the wei

2012And with respect to a trial court’s findings on mitigators, [ t]he Court in Campbell v. State, 571 So.2d 415 (Fla.1990), established relevant standards of review for mitigating circumstances: 1) Whether a particular circumstance is truly mitigating in nature is a question of law and subject to de novo review by this Court; 2) whether a mitigating circumstance has been established by the evidence in a given case is a question of fact and subject to the competent substantial evidence standard; and finally 3) the weight assigned to a mitigating circumstance is within the trial court’s discretion

2010As we have previously stated: The Court in Campbell v. State, 571 So.2d 415 (Fla.1990), established relevant standards of review for mitigating circumstances: 1) Whether a particular circumstance is truly mitigating in nature is a question of law and subject to de novo review by this Court; 2) whether a mitigating circumstances has been established by the evidence in a given case is a question of fact and subject to the competent substantial evidence standard; and finally 3) the weight assigned to a mitigating circumstance is within the trial court’s discretion and subject to the abuse of disc

2026Ctr., Inc. v. Mem’l Healthcare Grp., Inc., 967 So. 2d 794, 799 (Fla. 2007) (“Under the familiar maxim, we review findings of fact under the competent substantial evidence standard, while legal conclusions are reviewed de novo.” (citation omitted)).

2026Ctr., Inc. v. Mem’l Healthcare Grp., Inc., 967 So. 2d 794, 799 (Fla. 2007) (“Under the familiar maxim, we review findings of fact under the competent substantial evidence standard, while legal conclusions are reviewed de novo.” (citation omitted)).

2018See Town of Manalapan v. Gyongyosi, 828 So. 2d 1029, 1032 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002).

2018See Town of Manalapan v. Gyongyosi , 828 So.2d 1029 , 1032 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002).

2018See Savage v. State, 120 So. 3d 619, 622 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (“The competent substantial evidence standard defers to the trial court’s 4 judgment because the trial court is in the best position ‘to evaluate and weigh the testimony and evidence based upon its observation of the bearing, demeanor and credibility of the witnesses.’” (quoting In re Estate of Sterile, 902 So. 2d 915, 922 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005))).

2013The competent substantial evidence standard defers to the trial court’s judgment because the trial court is in the best position “‘to evaluate and weigh the testimony and evidence based upon its observation of the bearing, demeanor and credibility of the witnesses.’ ” In re Estate of Sterile, 902 So.2d 915, 922 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (quoting Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So.2d 13, 16 (Fla.1976)).

2018See also Nibert v. State, 574 So. 2d 1059, 1062 (Fla. 1990). “[W]hether a mitigating factor has been proven by the evidence is a question of fact subject to the competent substantial evidence standard.” Zack v. State, 753 So. 2d 9, 19 (Fla. 2000).

2018See also Nibert v. State, 574 So. 2d 1059, 1062 (Fla. 1990). “[W]hether a mitigating factor has been proven by the evidence is a question of fact subject to the competent substantial evidence standard.” Zack v. State, 753 So. 2d 9, 19 (Fla. 2000).

2018See also Nibert v. State, 574 So. 2d 1059, 1062 (Fla. 1990). “[W]hether a mitigating factor has been proven by the evidence is a question of fact subject to the competent substantial evidence standard.” Zack v. State, 753 So. 2d 9, 19 (Fla. 2000).

2018See also Nibert v. State, 574 So. 2d 1059, 1062 (Fla. 1990). “[W]hether a mitigating factor has been proven by the evidence is a question of fact subject to the competent substantial evidence standard.” Zack v. State, 753 So. 2d 9, 19 (Fla. 2000).

2013The competent substantial evidence standard defers to the trial court’s judgment because the trial court is in the best position “‘to evaluate and weigh the testimony and evidence based upon its observation of the bearing, demeanor and credibility of the witnesses.’ ” In re Estate of Sterile, 902 So.2d 915, 922 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (quoting Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So.2d 13, 16 (Fla.1976)).

2002Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So.2d 13, 16 (Fla.1976); Clegg v. Chipola Aviation, 458 So.2d 1186, 1187 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).

2006See Clegg v. Chipola Aviation, Inc., 458 So.2d 1186, 1187 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); USA Independence Mobilehome Sales, Inc. v. City of Lake City, 908 So.2d 1151, 1154 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005).

2002Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So.2d 13, 16 (Fla.1976); Clegg v. Chipola Aviation, 458 So.2d 1186, 1187 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).

2016See Fla. Power & Light, 761 So.2d at 1093 (explaining that the proper course where certiorari is granted for failure to apply the competent substantial evidence standard of review is to return the matter to the circuit court to reconsider the issue under the proper standard).

2016See Fla. Power & Light, 761 So.2d at 1093 (explaining that the proper course where certiorari is granted for failure to apply the competent substantial evidence standard of review is to return the matter to the circuit court to reconsider the issue under the proper standard).

2003The court began the opinion by noting that the competent substantial evidence rule of United States Casualty Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co., 55 So.2d 741 (Fla.1951), is the controlling rule.

2003They differed only in the number rating assigned. [2] Section 440.25(3)(b), Florida Statutes (1951), provided in pertinent part: "The order rejecting the claim or making the award (referred to in this chapter as a compensation order), together with a statement of the findings of fact and other matter pertinent to the questions at issue, shall be filed in the office of the commission at Tallahassee ...." (emphasis added). [3] The competent substantial evidence rule, so familiar to the workers' compensation bar and bench, was stated in United States Casualty Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co., 55 So.2

2024E.g., Verneret v. Foreclosure Advisors, LLC, 45 So. 3d 889, 891 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010).

2018See Savage v. State, 120 So. 3d 619, 622 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (“The competent substantial evidence standard defers to the trial court’s 4 judgment because the trial court is in the best position ‘to evaluate and weigh the testimony and evidence based upon its observation of the bearing, demeanor and credibility of the witnesses.’” (quoting In re Estate of Sterile, 902 So. 2d 915, 922 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005))).

2015See Davis, 117 So.3d at 467 ("DCF has misused a standard of review as a burden of proof.”).

2014“On appeal, this court reviews a trial court’s application of a statute de novo and any of the trial court’s findings of fact under the competent substantial evidence standard of review.” Chackal v. Staples, 991 So.2d 949, 953 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008).

2011See Lonergan v. Estate of Budahazi, 669 So.2d 1062, 1064 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) (holding that circumstantial evidence can meet the competent substantial evidence standard and that direct evidence is not required).

2011Competent substantial evidence is “‘evidence as will establish a substantial basis of fact from which the fact at issue can be reasonably inferred.... [S]uch relevant evidence as a reasonable mind would accept as adequate to support a conclusion.’” J.S. v. Fla. Dep’t of Children & Families, 18 So.3d 1170, 1175 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (quoting Perdue v. TJ Palm Assocs., Ltd., 755 So.2d 660, 665 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)); see also Pub.

2011Competent substantial evidence is “‘evidence as will establish a substantial basis of fact from which the fact at issue can be reasonably inferred.... [S]uch relevant evidence as a reasonable mind would accept as adequate to support a conclusion.’” J.S. v. Fla. Dep’t of Children & Families, 18 So.3d 1170, 1175 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (quoting Perdue v. TJ Palm Assocs., Ltd., 755 So.2d 660, 665 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)); see also Pub.

2010Assistance Foundation, Inc. v. Clark, 668 So.2d 982, 987 (Fla.1996).

2009Town of Indialantic v. Nance, 400 So.2d 37, 40 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981), approved, 419 So.2d 1041 (Fla.1982).

2009Town of Indialantic v. Nance, 400 So.2d 37, 40 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981), approved, 419 So.2d 1041 (Fla.1982).

2009See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Liggon, 668 So.2d 259, 271-72 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996).

2009See Davis v. Bons Secours-Maria Manor, 892 So.2d 516 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (reversing award of attorney's fee based on conclusion that fee was manifestly unfair).

2009See Davis v. Bons Secours-Maria Manor, 892 So.2d 516 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (reversing award of attorney’s fee based on conclusion that fee was manifestly unfair).