This case involved a dispute between the buyer and the seller's assignee over $400,000 in escrow funds under an asset purchase agreement for the assets of an insolvent company. The buyer missed the contractual 45-day deadline after the measurement period to submit a proposed statement seeking a purchase price adjustment based on lower-than-target revenues, submitting it 22 days late instead; the seller then exercised its right to declare that revenues had met targets and claimed the full escrow amount. The trial court ruled for the seller on the ground that missing the deadline waived any adjustment right. The appellate court reversed, concluding that time was not of the essence under the contract language, so the delay was not material and the buyer's calculations should be considered to effectuate the parties' intent to adjust the price based on actual performance.
In MM v. State, a juvenile appealed after police stopped and frisked him and a companion three blocks from a reported armed robbery based solely on a BOLO describing two white males fleeing on foot. Officers found marijuana in the juvenile's pocket during the frisk, leading to charges, and the trial court denied his motion to suppress the evidence. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the officers lacked reasonable suspicion for the stop because the BOLO provided only a vague, non-specific description without details on height, weight, clothing, or direction of travel, the individuals showed no suspicious behavior, and other people were present in the area. The court emphasized that a BOLO must supply well-founded, articulable facts beyond mere proximity to a crime to justify an investigatory stop, and it directed discharge of the appellant since the suppression ruling was dispositive.
The case concerned whether Palm Beach County's development order allowing Bergeron Sand and Rock Mine Aggregates to expand mining operations in the Everglades Agricultural Area on land designated for agricultural production was consistent with the county's comprehensive plan. The relevant Future Land Use Element policy 2.3-e.3 states that mining may be permitted only to support public roadway projects, agricultural activities, or certain water management projects. The trial court granted summary judgment upholding the order, concluding that some portion of the mined material being used for road projects satisfied the policy. On appeal, the court reversed, holding that the word "only" makes the enumerated purposes restrictive and that the order was inconsistent with the plain language of the policy because it did not limit mining to those purposes.
In Allen v. State, the defendant was charged with sexual battery of two minors and lewd and lascivious molestation of a third; he was acquitted of the molestation charge but convicted of the sexual batteries following a jury trial. The appellate court affirmed the convictions, holding that the defendant's confession was properly admitted under section 92.565, Florida Statutes, even without proof of corpus delicti for one victim, because the trial court correctly found the statement trustworthy based on corroborating details from the other victim's account, the defendant's letter of apology, and initial statements by the recanting victim. The court reversed the sentence, however, because the scoresheet erroneously assessed points for sexual penetration that were not supported by the jury's verdict form, and it remanded for resentencing with a corrected scoresheet.
In Henn v. Ultrasmit Racing, LLC, the plaintiff sued the defendant for breach of contract after damage to a rented race car. After the plaintiff failed to appear with counsel at status conferences, the trial court dismissed the case without prejudice. The defendant then sought attorney's fees under the rental contract as the prevailing party, but the trial court denied the motion, reasoning that the dismissal without prejudice did not end the litigation. On appeal, the court reversed, holding that the defendant was the prevailing party entitled to fees whether the dismissal was voluntary or a sanction, based on precedents allowing fees without an adjudication on the merits.
This case arose from a motor vehicle accident where the defendant admitted negligence and the trial focused on damages, including whether the plaintiff suffered a permanent injury. The trial court initially excluded the treating physician's opinion on permanency for lack of prior disclosure under discovery rules, resulting in a jury verdict of no permanent injury, but later granted a new trial after finding the defendant had adequate notice from pleadings, interrogatories, and medical records. The appellate court reviewed for abuse of discretion and affirmed, reasoning that the key issue was lack of prejudice or surprise to the defendant under Binger v. King Pest Control, rather than the witness's classification as a fact or expert witness, and that exclusion was not warranted given the circumstances.