green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 4×
43.0 score
G Cite
cited 4× by 4 distinct cases ·
…a trial court's oral pronouncement must control over a later written order.
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
CATHERINE SOLDATICH v. GREGORY JONES o/b/o RAYMOND JOHN JONES
a trial court's oral pronouncement must control over a later written order.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
CITY OF HALLANDALE BEACH v. CAROLANN SHARKEY, Individually, etc.
a trial court's oral pronouncement must control over a later written order.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
JOACHIM D. EMILE v. DANIA EXCELLENT
a trial court's oral pronouncement must control over a later written order.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Cajuste v. Herlitschek
a trial court's oral pronouncement must control over a later written order.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Rochelle Silver v. Gregory Goodrich
It is well established that “[w]hen a trial court’s written order is inconsistent with its earlier oral pronouncement, the oral pronouncement generally controls and the written order must be reversed.” Johansson v. Johansson, 348 So. 3d 1153 , 1155 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022); see also Soldatich v. Jones, 290 So. 3d 497 , 500 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020); Cappola v. Cappola, 280 So. 3d 102 , 104 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019); Glick v. Glick, 874 So. 2d 1238, 1241 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
OMAR F. GUERRA JOHANSSON v. JULIET E. JOHANSSON
See Soldatich v. Jones, 290 So. 3d 497 , 500 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020); Cappola v. Cappola, 280 So. 3d 102 , 104 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019); Glick v. Glick, 874 So. 2d 1238, 1241 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004).
discussed
Cited "see"
Primecare Network, Inc. v. Payroll LLC.
See Glick v. Glick, 874 So. 2d 1238 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (reversing contempt order based on the failure of a prior order to include oral pronouncements by the trial court). 3 An ore tenus motion for a judicial default by the plaintiff at the motion to strike hearing would not have complied with the rule 1.500(b) notice requirement for an application for a judicial default.
discussed
Cited "see"
DANA CAPPOLA v. PAUL CAPPOLA
See Glick v. Glick, 874 So. 2d 1238, 1241 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); see also Cajuste v. Herlitschek, 204 So. 3d 80, 83 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (determining that when a conflict exists between the court’s oral pronouncement and its written order, the oral pronouncement controls).
discussed
Cited "see"
Kensler v. State
See Thaden v. State, 874 So.2d 1238 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). 1 Thaden , while affirming the lower court’s rejection of appellant’s argument that the Act violated his right to procedural process, nonetheless certified conflict with Espindola v. State, 855 So.2d 1281 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (on mot. for reh’g), notice of appeal filed, No. SC03-2103 (Fla. Nov. 10, 2003), which had held to the contrary that the statute was unconstitutional.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Cancino v. Cancino
To the extent a written contempt order fails to conform to the trial court’s oral pronouncements, the contempt order must be reversed.2 Romero v. Romero, 916 So. 2d 952, 954 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); see also Glick v. Glick, 874 So. 2d 1238, 1241 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In re Swarup
See e.g., Glick v. Glick, 874 So.2d 1238, 1239 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); Lazy Flamingo, USA, Inc. v. Greenfield, 834 So.2d 413, 414 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Knott v. Knott, 395 So.2d 1196, 1197 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1981).
John Wesley THADEN
v.
STATE of Florida
v.
STATE of Florida
No. 1D03-3341.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
May 28, 2004.
Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and P. Douglas Brinkmeyer, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant., Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, and Thomas H. Duffy, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Ervin, Nortwick, Wolf.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
Citer courts: District Court of Appeal of Fl… (1)
AFFIRMED. See Therrien v. State, 859 So.2d 585, 587 (Fla. 1st DCA) (rejecting appellant’s argument that section 775.21, Florida Statutes (2000), violated his right to procedural due process, because it did not require a hearing to determine whether he posed a danger to the public), review ‘pending, No. SC03-2219 (Fla. Dec. 18, 2003). Accord Glenn v. State, 861 So.2d 1289 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); Reyes v. State, 854 So.2d 816 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); Milks v. State, 848 So.2d 1167 (Fla. 2d DCA), review granted, 859 So.2d 514 (Fla.2003). We certify conflict with Espindola v. State, 855 So.2d 1281, 1290 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003).
AFFIRMED.