Bank of New York Mellon Trust Co. v. Eicher, 220 So. 3d 490 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017). · Go Syfert
Search
Bank of New York Mellon Trust Co. v. Eicher, 220 So. 3d 490 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
3 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: ROQUE ESTEBAN CALAFELL v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA (fladistctapp, 2022-02-16)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) ROQUE ESTEBAN CALAFELL v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2022 · confidence medium
A prior panel of this court explained, on this issue, that no relief lies where the State, as here, presented “an alternative theory of guilt for 3 which the evidence is sufficient.” Calafell v. State, 220 So. 3d 490, 492 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017).
cited Cited "see" ROQUE ESTEBAN CALAFELL v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2022 · signal: see · confidence high
See Calafell v. State, 220 So. 3d 490 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Gordon v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2017 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Calafell v. State, No. 3D15-852, 220 So.3d 490 , 2017 WL 1713308 (Fla. 3d DCA May 3, 2017); Burns v. State, 170 So.3d 90 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015); DeJesus v. State, 98 So.3d 105 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012); Davis v. State, 922 So.2d 438 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006); Perkins v. State, 814 So.2d 1177 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002).
BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST COMPANY, etc.
v.
Jeffery EICHER, Roberta Eicher
Case No. 5D15-3302.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Apr 28, 2017.
220 So. 3d 490
Diana B. Matson and Joshua R. Levine, of Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC, Fort Lauderdale, for Appellant., Jose G. Oliveira, of Jose G. Oliveira, PA, ' Orlando, and Raymer F. Maguire, III, of Maguire Lassman, P.A., Orlando, for Ap-pellees, Jeffery and Roberta Eicher., No Appearance for Other Appellees.
Cohen, Palmer, Sawaya.
Published

Lead Opinion

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

SAWAYA and PALMER, JJ., concur. COHEN, C.J., concurs specially, with opinion.

Concurrence

COHEN, J.,

concurring specially, with opinion.

Our affirmance should not be read as approval of the rulings in this case. The trial court accepted arguments that conflated standing with-the .authority of a servicing ' agent to testify. Our decision merely rejects the argument that the errors below, unpreserved by objection, rise to the level of fundamental error.