Citation Codes Equivalent Citations citation codes Docket Number Case No. SC02-1317. See more information ... Smart Summary Summary of Opinion: Esig Perlow v. Sharon H. Berg-Perlow, et al., Case No. SC02-1317 Court: Supreme Court of Florida Date: June 10, 2004 Lower Tribunal Numbers: 4D00-60; 4D00-978 Caption: ESIG PERLOW, Petitioner(s) v. SHARON H. BERG-PERLOW, et al., Respondent(s). Disposition Line (from opinion): "In light of the revised opinion, the Petitioner's Motion for Clarification is hereby denied." Justices Concurring: ANSTEAD, C.J., and WELLS, PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANTERO, and BELL, JJ. Factual and Procedural Background The provided opinion text contains no factual narrative or substantive background information about the underlying dispute between the parties. The document is a short Supreme Court of Florida entry addressing a post-opinion motion. Procedurally, the opinion records the Court's disposition of a post-decision filing: the Petitioner's Motion for Clarification regarding a previously issued (and here described as "revised") opinion. The caption and lower tribunal numbers are included, but the opinion does not describe the underlying facts or prior proceedings beyond these identifiers. Legal Issues Presented The opinion addresses a procedural matter and does not frame distinct legal issues. Arguments of the Parties The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments. Table of Precedents Cited No precedents were cited in the provided opinion. Court's Reasoning and Analysis The text of the opinion is concise and contains limited reasoning. The Court's stated basis for its action is the existence of a "revised opinion." The Court explains its disposition in a single sentence: "In light of the revised opinion, the Petitioner's Motion for Clarification is hereby denied." No further analysis, discussion of legal standards, or elaboration is provided in the provided excerpt. The concurrence notation indicates that the listed justices agreed with that disposition. Holding and Implications Holding: The Petitioner's Motion for Clarification is hereby denied. Implications: The immediate, direct effect of the Court's action is the denial of the Petitioner's Motion for Clarification. The opinion references a "revised opinion" as the reason for denial but does not include or summarize that revised opinion in the provided text. The provided excerpt does not discuss broader legal consequences or announce any new legal precedent; therefore, no new precedent is evident from this document alone. Note: This summary is drawn exclusively from the text provided. Where the opinion did not supply information (for example, factual background, party arguments, precedent citations, or extended analysis), those sections reflect that absence rather than additional interpretation. Show full summary ... ESIG PERLOW, Petitioner(s) v. SHARON H. BERG-PERLOW, et al., Respondent(s). In light of the revised opinion, the Petitioner's Motion for Clarification is hereby denied. ANSTEAD, C.J., and WELLS, PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANTERO, and BELL, JJ., concur.