green
Positive treatment
22.1 score
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
William J. Osborne and Amanda L. Osborne v. Drees Homes of Florida, Inc.
The trial court noted this stipulation in the order granting the motion to compel arbitration. 3 Analysis “Appellate review of whether a trial court erred in denying a motion to compel arbitration presents ‘a mixed question of law and fact.’ ‘Orders denying motions for arbitration are reviewed de novo, except that factual findings are reviewed for support by competent, substantial evidence.’” Palm Garden of Healthcare Holdings, LLC v. Haydu, 209 So. 3d 636, 638 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017) (citations omitted) (first quoting Fonte v. AT&T Wireless Servs., Inc., 903 So. 2d 1019, 1023 (Fla. 4t…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Northport Health v. Louis
Additionally, “a] trial court's decision regarding whether an arbitration agreement or provision is void as against public policy presents ‘a pure question of law, subject 4 The agreement requires the arbitrator to “apply the substantive law (and the law of remedies, if applicable) of the State in which the facility is located.” The facility is located in Florida. 3 to de novo review.’” Fi-Evergreen Woods, LLC v. Estate of Vrastil, 118 So. 3d 859, 862 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (quoting Shotts v. OP Winter Haven, Inc., 86 So. 3d 456, 471 (Fla. 2011)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Timber Pines Plaza, LLC v. Zabrzyski
Fi-Evergreen Woods, LLC v. Estate of Vrastil, 118 So.3d 859, 862 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Palm Garden of Healthcare Holdings, LLC v. Haydu
“Orders denying motions for arbitration are reviewed de novo, except that factual findings are reviewed for support by competent, substantial evidence.” Fi-Evergreen Woods, LLC v. Estate of Vrastil, 118 So.3d 859, 862 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (citing Best v. Educ.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Klemish v. Villacastin
“A trial court’s decision regarding whether an arbitration agreement or provision is void as against public policy presents ‘a pure question of law, subject to de *17 novo review.’ ” Fi-Evergreen Woods, LLC v. Estate of Vrastil, 118 So.3d 859, 862 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (quoting Shotts v. OP Winter Haven, Inc,, 86 So.3d 456, 471 (Fla.2011)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hancock v. Northport Health Services of Florida, LLC
“A trial court’s decision regarding whether an arbitration agreement or provision is void as against public policy presents ‘a pure question of law, subject to de novo review.’ ” Fi-Evergreen Woods, LLC v. Estate of Vrastil, 118 So.3d 859, 862 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (quoting Shotts v. OP Winter Haven, Inc., 86 So.3d 456, 471 (Fla.2011)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Pilot Catastrophe Services, Inc. v. Fouche
Furthermore, a trial court’s decision regarding whether an arbitration agreement or provision is void as against public policy presents “a pure question of law, subject to de novo review.” Fi-Ever-green Woods v. Estate of Vrastil, 118 So.3d 859, 862 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (quoting Shotts v. OP Winter Haven, Inc., 86 So.3d 456, 471 (Fla.2011)).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Fi-Evergreen Woods, LLC v. Estate of Robinson
See, e.g., Fi-Evergreen Woods, LLC v. Estate of Vrastil, 118 So.3d 859, 864 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (declining to consider appellee’s additional reasons for finding arbitration agreement unenforceable because they were not argued in the trial court); Hanisch v. Wilder, 210 So.2d 491, 493 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968) (holding appellant waived argument that photocopies lacked proper foundation by failing to object on the same ground below). .
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Cohen v. D.R. Horton, Inc.
Id. at 90 , 121 S.Ct. 513 ; see also Fi-Evergreen Woods, LLC v. Estate of Vrastil, 118 So.3d 859 (Fla. 5th DCA July 5, 2013).
Rodger BUTLER
v.
Cheryl BARTLEY
v.
Cheryl BARTLEY
No. 1D13-2506.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Jul 1, 2013.
Rodger Butler, pro se, Petitioner., No appearance for Respondent.
Padovano, Swanson, Wetherell.
Published
The petition for writ of mandamus is denied on the merits. See Thomas v. State, Dept. of Revenue, 74 So.3d 145 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (stating that absent a showing that an express and distinct demand for performance, mandamus will not lie to compel a court to rule on a pleading in a civil matter).