green
Positive treatment
31.7 score
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Heather Washington v. VyStar Credit Union
(3×)
Nabbie v. Orlando Outlet Owner, LLC, 237 So. 3d 463, 466 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lambert v. Emerald Publishing Limited
(2×)
Ct. App. 2007), but, “in the absence of limiting terms like ‘if’, ‘provided that,’ or ‘on condition that,’ ‘whether a certain contractual provision is a condition, rather than a promise, must be gathered from the contract as a whole and from the intent of the parties,’” Nabbie v. Orlando Outlet Owner, LLC, 237 So. 3d 463, 466 (Fla. Dist.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Eduardo Gomez v. CVPort Services, LLC
Nabbie v. Orlando Outlet Owner, LLC, 237 So. 3d 463, 466 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bluhm v. Wyndham Destinations Inc
Fla. Dec. 29, 2021) (“A contract is ambiguous when there are competing reasonable interpretations of the instrument, but ‘fanciful, inconsistent, and absurd interpretations’ do no not create ambiguity.” (quoting Nabbie v. Orlando Outlet Owner, LLC, 237 So. 3d 463, 467 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018))).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Aecom Technical Services, Inc. v. Professional Service Industries, Inc.
Nabbie v. Orlando Outlet Owner, LLC, 237 So. 3d 463, 467 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018) (quoting Vyfvinkel v. Vyfvinkel, 135 So. 3d 384, 385 (Fla. 5th DCA 12 2014)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Susan Snyder v. Florida Prepaid College Board
See CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Turner, 172 So. 3d 502, 504 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (“A contract is ambiguous 11 when it is susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation, but where one interpretation of a contract would be absurd and another would be consistent with reason and probability, the contract should be interpreted in the rational manner.” (internal quotation and citation omitted)); Nabbie v. Orlando Outlet Owner, LLC, 237 So. 3d 463, 466-67 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018) (recognizing a true ambiguity only exists when it is susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation).
cited
Cited "see"
PIAL HOLDINGS, LTD v. RIVERFRONT PLAZA, LLC
See Nabbie v. Orlando Outlet Owner, LLC, 237 So. 3d 463, 466 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018) (citing Jackson v. Shakespeare Found., Inc., 108 So. 3d 587 , 5 593 (Fla. 2013)).
discussed
Cited "see"
RAYMOND ERB v. CHUBB NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, etc.
See Nabbie v. Orlando Outlet Owner, LLC, 237 So. 3d 463, 466 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018) (internal quotations and citations omitted); see also City of Homestead v. Johnson, 760 So. 2d 80, 84 (Fla. 2000) (“[W]e rely upon the rule of construction requiring courts to read provisions of a contract harmoniously in order to give effect to all portions thereof.”).
Chasen Allen OTT
v.
STATE of Florida
v.
STATE of Florida
Case No. 5D17–4087.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Feb 9, 2018.
237 So. 3d 463
Amanda C. Micallef, of Law Offices of Amanda C. Micallef, P.A., Ocala, for Petitioner., No Appearance for Respondent.
Published
The petition for belated appeal is granted. A copy of this opinion shall be filed with the trial court and be treated as the notice of appeal from the October 19, 2017, judgment and sentence in Case No. 2016-CF-87-A, in the Circuit Court in and for Citrus County, Florida. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(c)(6)(D).
PETITION GRANTED.
SAWAYA, EVANDER and BERGER, JJ., concur.