showing clause in Florida

2013Computer Controls, Inc. v. Charles Perry Constr., Inc., 743 So.2d 627, 631 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999).

2004"As a general principle, a trial court must honor a mandatory forum selection clause in a contract in the absence of a showing that the clause is unreasonable or unjust." Aqua Sun, 797 So.2d at 24-25 (citation omitted); Management Computer Controls, 743 So.2d at 631 (citing Manrique ; Haws & Garrett Gen.

2025“If the forum selection clause states or clearly indicates that any litigation must or shall be initiated in specified forum, then the clause is mandatory and must be honored by the trial court in the absence of a showing that the clause is unreasonable or unjust.” Michaluk v. Credorax (USA), Inc., 164 So. 3d 719, 722-23 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (cleaned up) (quoting Travel Exp.

2025A mandatory forum selection clause is identified by “exclusive” language and “must be honored by the trial court in the absence of a showing that the clause is unreasonable or unjust.” Michaluk v. Credorax (USA), Inc., 164 So. 3d 719, 722-23 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015).

2006Manrique v. Fabbri, 493 So.2d 437, 440 (Fla.1986); Mgmt.

2001See Manrique v. Fabbri, 493 So.2d 437, 439 (Fla.1986) citing M/S Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1 , 92 S.Ct. 1907 , 32 L.Ed.2d 513 (1972); Management Computer Controls, Inc. v. Charles Perry Constr., Inc., 743 So.2d 627, 631 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); see also Carlson-Southeast Corp. v. Geolithic, Inc., 530 So.2d 1069 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) ("It is well settled that parties to a contract may agree as to venue and that such agreement will be enforced.") quoting Insurance Co. of North America v. Jetstar Dev., Inc., 515 So.2d 272, 273 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987).

2016See Aqua Sun Mgmt., Inc. v. Divi Time Ltd., 797 So.2d 24, 24-25 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (“As a general principle, a trial court must honor a mandatory forum selection clause in a contract in the absence of a showing that the clause is unreasonable' or unjust.”); see also McDonald v. Amacore Grp., Inc., No. A-1293-10T2, 2012 WL 2327727 , at *4-5 (N.J.Super.Ct.App.Div.

2009“As a general principle, a trial court must honor a mandatory forum selection clause in a contract in the absence of a showing that the clause is unreasonable or unjust.” Aqua Sun Mgmt., Inc. v. Divi Time Ltd., 797 So.2d 24, 24-25 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (citing Mgmt.

2023“As a general principle, a trial court must honor a mandatory forum selection clause in a contract in the absence of a showing that the clause is unreasonable or unjust.” 4 Id. (emphasis added) 3 See Antonin Scalia & Bryan A. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts 51 (2012). 4 To clear this high legal hurdle, the party seeking avoidance must demonstrate much more than “mere inconvenience or additional expense”; rather he must establish that “trial in the contractual forum will be so gravely difficult and inconvenient that 5 The plain language of the forum selection clause sub j

2015AT & T Corp., 14 So.3d at 1226 (internal quotations omitted) (holding forum selection clause was mandatory where it provided: “The parties consent to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts located in New York City, USA.” (emphasis added.)) See also World Vacation Travel, S.A. de C.V. v. Brooker, 799 So.2d 410, 411 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (holding forum selection mandatory where it provided: “[Bjoth parties agree and accept to be subjected to the jurisdiction and competence of the Administrative Authorities and Courts of the city of Cancun, Municipality of Benito Juarez, in the State of Quintana R

2015AT & T Corp., 14 So.3d at 1226 (internal quotations omitted) (holding forum selection clause was mandatory where it provided: “The parties consent to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts located in New York City, USA.” (emphasis added.)) See also World Vacation Travel, S.A. de C.V. v. Brooker, 799 So.2d 410, 411 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (holding forum selection mandatory where it provided: “[Bjoth parties agree and accept to be subjected to the jurisdiction and competence of the Administrative Authorities and Courts of the city of Cancun, Municipality of Benito Juarez, in the State of Quintana R

2015AT & T Corp., 14 So.3d at 1226 (internal quotations omitted) (holding forum selection clause was mandatory where it provided: “The parties consent to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts located in New York City, USA.” (emphasis added.)) See also World Vacation Travel, S.A. de C.V. v. Brooker, 799 So.2d 410, 411 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (holding forum selection mandatory where it provided: “[Bjoth parties agree and accept to be subjected to the jurisdiction and competence of the Administrative Authorities and Courts of the city of Cancun, Municipality of Benito Juarez, in the State of Quintana R

2025Plaza Venture, LLC., 934 So. 2d 670, 673 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006).

2015Plaza Venture, LLC, 934 So.2d 670, 673 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (“Florida law has long recognized that injunctive relief is available to remedy the violation of a restrictive covenant without a showing that the violation has caused an irreparable injury — that is, an injury for which there is no adequate remedy at law.”); Jack Eckerd Corp. v. 17070.

2015AT & T Corp., 14 So.3d at 1226 (internal quotations omitted) (holding forum selection clause was mandatory where it provided: “The parties consent to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts located in New York City, USA.” (emphasis added.)) See also World Vacation Travel, S.A. de C.V. v. Brooker, 799 So.2d 410, 411 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (holding forum selection mandatory where it provided: “[Bjoth parties agree and accept to be subjected to the jurisdiction and competence of the Administrative Authorities and Courts of the city of Cancun, Municipality of Benito Juarez, in the State of Quintana R

2015AT&T Corp., 14 So. 3d at 1226 (internal quotations omitted) (holding forum selection clause was mandatory where it provided: “The parties consent to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts located in New York City, USA.” (emphasis added.)) See also World Vacation Travel, S.A. de C.V. v. Brooker, 799 So. 2d 410, 411 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (holding forum selection mandatory where it provided: “[B]oth parties agree and accept to be 6 subjected to the jurisdiction and competence of the Administrative Authorities and Courts of the city of Cancun, Municipality of Benito Juarez, in the State of Quintana

2024Moreover, “[w]hen a contract includes a mandatory venue clause, a trial court is bound to honor it unless there is ‘a showing that the clause is unjust or unreasonable.’” Id. (quoting Travel Country RV Ctr., Inc. v. Baxter, 932 So. 2d 547, 548 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)).

2021See Latson v. State, 193 So. 3d 1070, 1072 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (Winokur, J., concurring) (observing that “if the defendant does not properly preserve a claimed error, the only statutorily-authorized basis for appellate relief is a showing that the error is fundamental”).

2016As the Supreme Court has put it, “the sole exception to the contemporaneous objection requirement is fundamental error.” Harrell v. State, 894 So.2d 935, 941 (Fla. 2005).

2016As the Supreme Court has put it, “the sole exception to the 4 contemporaneous objection requirement is fundamental error.” Harrell v. State, 894 So. 2d 935, 941 (Fla. 2005).

2015Id.; see also Farina v. State, 680 So.2d 392, 898 (Fla.1996).

2015Cromartie v. State, 70 So.3d 559, 563-64 (Fla.2011) (quoting Jackson v. State, 983 So.2d 562, 575 (Fla.2008)).

2015Cromartie v. State, 70 So.3d 559, 563-64 (Fla.2011) (quoting Jackson v. State, 983 So.2d 562, 575 (Fla.2008)).

2010Additionally, we note that “IADA violations are uncognizable in habeas proceedings, absent a showing that the violation prejudiced the rights of the accused by ‘affect[ing] or impugning] the integrity of the fact finding process’ at trial.” Hunter v. Samples, 15 F.3d 1011, 1012 (11th Cir.1994) (quoting Seymore v. Alabama, 846 F.2d 1355, 1359 (11th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1018 , 109 S.Ct. 816 , 102 L.Ed.2d 806 (1989)).

2010Additionally, we note that “IADA violations are uncognizable in habeas proceedings, absent a showing that the violation prejudiced the rights of the accused by ‘affect[ing] or impugning] the integrity of the fact finding process’ at trial.” Hunter v. Samples, 15 F.3d 1011, 1012 (11th Cir.1994) (quoting Seymore v. Alabama, 846 F.2d 1355, 1359 (11th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1018 , 109 S.Ct. 816 , 102 L.Ed.2d 806 (1989)).

2010Walker has also failed to demonstrate any error in the trial court’s handling of his speedy trial argument. “[T]he determination of whether a person has been deprived of his constitutional right to a speedy trial depends in large part upon the consideration of four elements: (1) length of delay, (2) reason for delay, (3) whether the defendant asserted his right to be tried speedily, and (4) prejudice to the defendant caused by the delay.” State v. Blankenship, 422 So.2d 1059, 1060 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982) (citing Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 , 92 S.Ct. 2182 , 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972)).

2009Computer Controls, Inc. v. Charles Perry Constr., Inc., 743 So.2d 627, 631 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)); see also Texas Auto Mart, 979 So.2d at 362 (“If a venue selection clause unambiguously mandates that litigation be subject to an agreed upon venue, then it is reversible error for the trial court to ignore the clause.”).

2008Walbridge Aldinger Co. v. Roberts Plumbing Contractors, Inc., 800 So.2d 285, 287 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001).

2006In Stephl v. Moore, 94 Fla. 313 , 114 So. 455, 455 (1927), the court rejected the claim that the failure to allege "that a violation of the covenants in [a] deed amounts to an irreparable injury" precluded the granting of injunctive relief.

2006In Stephl v. Moore, 94 Fla. 313 , 114 So. 455, 455 (1927), the court rejected the claim that the failure to allege "that a violation of the covenants in [a] deed amounts to an irreparable injury" precluded the granting of injunctive relief.