Smith v. Carlton

2 Citing cases

  1. Se. Dev. Partners v. St. Johns Cnty.

    3:23-cv-00846-CRK-PDB (M.D. Fla. Sep. 13, 2024)   Cited 1 times

    However, waiver must be demonstrated by conduct, acts, or circumstances that make out “a clear case,” and may not be inferred from ambiguous or doubtful circumstances. See Multiquimica Dominicana v. Chemo Int'l, Inc., 707 Fed.Appx. 692, 695 (11th Cir. 2017); Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. Vogel, 195 So.2d 20, 24 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1967). “Mere delay is insufficient to support waiver.” Smith v. Carlton, 348 So.3d 52, 57 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2022).

  2. Kun Xiang v. Ocala Heart Clinic II, LLC

    379 So. 3d 561 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2024)   Cited 1 times

    [1–3] We review de novo a trial court’s interpretation of a contract, which is, of course, a question of law. See Smith v. Carlton, 348 So. 3d 52, 56 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022). Importantly, however, "[i]n an appeal from a bench trial, the trial judge[‘]s findings of fact are clothed with a presumption of correctness on appeal, and these findings will not be disturbed unless the appellant can demonstrate that they are clearly erroneous.