Burke Construction Group, Inc. v. 1170 Supermarket, LLC, Etc.

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedMay 6, 2026
Docket3D2025-0544
StatusPublished

This text of Burke Construction Group, Inc. v. 1170 Supermarket, LLC, Etc. (Burke Construction Group, Inc. v. 1170 Supermarket, LLC, Etc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Burke Construction Group, Inc. v. 1170 Supermarket, LLC, Etc., (Fla. Ct. App. 2026).

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed May 6, 2026. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D25-0544 Lower Tribunal No. 20-1764-CA-01 ________________

Burke Construction Group, Inc., Appellant,

vs.

1170 Supermarket, LLC, etc., Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Mavel Ruiz, Judge.

Elder & Lewis, P.A., and David R. Elder and Kerry H. Lewis, for appellant.

Agentis PLLC, and Javier J. Rodriguez and Izabella Mojica, for appellee.

Before GORDO, BOKOR and GOODEN, JJ.

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Haas Automation, Inc. v. Fox, 243 So. 3d 1017, 1023

(Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (“We review a judgment rendered after a bench trial to

ensure that the trial court's findings of fact are supported by competent,

substantial evidence. We review the trial court’s purely legal conclusions de

novo.”) (citations omitted); Marsh v. Marsh, 419 So. 2d 629, 630 (Fla. 1982)

(“The credibility of the witnesses and the weight given their testimony,

however, is a question for the trial court.”); Martin v. Martin, 43 So. 3d 195,

196 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (“The trial court has wide discretion in evaluating

the credibility of evidence and witnesses.”); see also Lefemine v. Baron, 573

So. 2d 326, 328 (Fla. 1991) (“It is well settled that in Florida the parties to a

contract may stipulate in advance to an amount to be paid or retained as

liquidated damages in the event of a breach.”); Charbonier Food Servs., LLC

v. 121 Alhambra Tower, LLC, 206 So. 3d 755, 758 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)

(“Where a contract is unambiguous, it shall be enforced according to its plain

language. In such a situation, the trial court must confine itself to the four

corners of the contract, because the language itself is the best evidence of

the parties' intent, and its plain meaning controls.”) (citation omitted).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Lefemine v. Baron
573 So. 2d 326 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1991)
Marsh v. Marsh
419 So. 2d 629 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1982)
Charbonier Food Services, LLC v. 121 Alhambra Tower, LLC
206 So. 3d 755 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2016)
Haas Automation, Inc. v. Fox
243 So. 3d 1017 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2018)
Martin v. Martin
43 So. 3d 195 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Burke Construction Group, Inc. v. 1170 Supermarket, LLC, Etc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burke-construction-group-inc-v-1170-supermarket-llc-etc-fladistctapp-2026.