You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Brant Realty Corp. v. Walter Etling Co.

Citations: 524 So. 2d 1159; 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 2011; 1988 WL 47688Docket: Nos. 86-2256, 86-2676

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; May 17, 1988; Florida; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

The court affirmed the decision in Shuler v. Allen, citing various precedents including Cumberland Savings Trust Co. v. McGriff, Richland Grove Cattle Co. v. Easterling, L.C. Judd Co. v. Joseph C. Mackey Co., Banks Real Estate Corp. v. Gordon, Zwirn v. Gelvan, and Wilkins v. W.B. Tilton Real Estate Insurance Inc. The referenced cases span a range of legal principles pertinent to the matter at hand, illustrating a consistent application of Florida law relevant to the issues raised in the appeal. The affirmation indicates that the appellate court found no reversible error in the lower court's ruling.

Legal Issues Addressed

Application of Florida Law in Appellate Review

Application: The appellate court applies Florida law consistently to evaluate the issues raised, finding no reversible error in the lower court's decision.

Reasoning: The referenced cases span a range of legal principles pertinent to the matter at hand, illustrating a consistent application of Florida law relevant to the issues raised in the appeal.

Precedential Authority in Appellate Decisions

Application: The court relies on a series of precedents to affirm the lower court's ruling, demonstrating adherence to established Florida law.

Reasoning: The court affirmed the decision in Shuler v. Allen, citing various precedents including Cumberland Savings Trust Co. v. McGriff, Richland Grove Cattle Co. v. Easterling, L.C. Judd Co. v. Joseph C. Mackey Co., Banks Real Estate Corp. v. Gordon, Zwirn v. Gelvan, and Wilkins v. W.B. Tilton Real Estate Insurance Inc.

Standard of Review for Reversible Error

Application: The appellate court, upon reviewing the case, determined that the lower court's decision contained no reversible error, thus affirming the ruling.

Reasoning: The affirmation indicates that the appellate court found no reversible error in the lower court's ruling.