GRUNZKE v. Mason
18 So. 3d 652, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 12858, 2009 WL 2777158
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedSeptember 1, 2009
Docket1D09-1422
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases
This text of 18 So. 3d 652 (GRUNZKE v. Mason) 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
GRUNZKE v. Mason, 18 So. 3d 652, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 12858, 2009 WL 2777158 (Fla. Ct. App. 2009).
Opinion
AFFIRMED. See Plichta v. Plichta, 899 So.2d 1283, 1285-86 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (holding that Perlow v. Berg-Perlow, 875 So.2d 383 (Fla.2004), does not require a trial court to afford a litigant the opportunity to object to a proposed order prior to the court’s adoption of it if the proposed order merely memorializes rulings the trial court has already made).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Justice Administrative Commission v. Taylor
50 So. 3d 753 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2010)
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
18 So. 3d 652, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 12858, 2009 WL 2777158, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grunzke-v-mason-fladistctapp-2009.