Legal Opinion

Still v. Polecat Industries, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided November 27, 1996No. 96-2141PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Per curiam

Appellants, Arthur C. Still, Jr. and Art’s Tree Service, appeal an order dismissing their action with prejudice after the trial court declined to modify the settlement agreement signed by both parties. We affirm.

Settlement agreements are highly favored in the law as a means of resolving disputes between parties. The appellants were represented by counsel, entered into a binding settlement agreement, and ratified the terms of the agreement by accepting the settlement funds. Accordingly, we find no legal basis to contest the settlement agreement. See Lotspeich Co. v. Neogard Corp., 416 So.2d…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Lotspeich Co. v. Neogard Corp.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1982
  2. Shields v. Del RosarioDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1974
  3. Kisz v. MassryDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1983

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Mathis v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1996
  2. Citron v. Wachovia Mortgage Corp.District Court, M.D. Florida · 2013
  3. Armstrong v. U.S. Bank National AssociationDistrict Court, M.D. Florida · 2024
  4. Metropolitan Dade County v. FonteDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1996

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API