O. K. HOUSTON, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
CAESARS WORLD, INC., F/K/A LUMS, INC., APPELLEE
O. K. HOUSTON, JR., APPELLANT,
CAESARS WORLD, INC., F/K/A LUMS, INC., APPELLEE
370 So. 2d 410
Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1979)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 3 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. Aronovitz v. Stein Properties, 322 So. 2d 74 (Fla.3d DCA 1975); Ruden v. Medalie, 294 So. 2d 403 (Fla.3d DCA 1974); United States v. State of Florida, 179 So. 2d 890 (Fla.3d DCA 1965). See also Syms v. Castleton Industries, Inc., 470 F. 2d 1078 (5th Cir. 1972); City of Orlando v. Murphy, 77 F. 2d 702 (5th Cir. 1935).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Teresita Fernandez v. Fla. Ins. Guar. Ass'n, Inc., 383 So. 2d 974 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…v. Parker, 136 Fla. 689, 187 So. 620 (1939); McPhail v. Jenkins, 382 So. 2d 1329 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Harrell v. State, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 361 So. 2d 715, 717-18 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). Affirmed. . In Ruiz v. Fernandez, 370 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), we affirmed this judgment over both FIGA’s appeal on the merits, and the plaintiffs cross-appeal from the $10,000 limitation of the judgment against FIGA. Because of our ruling on the merits, we do not consider whether the prior…
-
Snead v. State, 415 So. 2d 887 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)…ial court was correct. Our initial decision was based upon erroneous and misrepresented facts due to lack of a complete record which when received by us clearly shows the trial court properly denied Snead’s motion for discharge. See State v. Pierce, 370 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). It was unnecessary that we address in our initial decision the other issues raised by Snead because we held that he should be discharged. Now it is necessary that we determine them. We affirm in each instance. Snead contends t…
-
Hood v. State, 415 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)…mistake of fact or fraud on the court; nor did it involve any matter cognizable at common law as adequate to modify a judgment. See, e.g., State v. Burton, 314 So. 2d 136 (Fla.1975); Lovett v. State, 29 Fla. 384, 11 So. 176 (1892); State v. Pierce, 370 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). In view of our disposition on the merits, we do not consider the authority of a trial court to rehear the matter of appellant’s speedy trial discharge. . A successor trial judge cannot review, modify or reverse on the merits an…
Authorities Cited
- United States v. State of Fla. & Cnty. of Dade, 179 So. 2d 890 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Ruden v. Medalie, 294 So. 2d 403 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Aronovitz v. Stein Props., 322 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
- City of Orlando v. Murphy, 77 F.2d 702 (5th Cir. 1935)
- Syms v. Castleton Indus., Inc., 470 F.2d 1078 (5th Cir. 1972)