FORT WALTON ROOFING AND MAINTENANCE COMPANY, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
THE SHELBY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLEE
FORT WALTON ROOFING AND MAINTENANCE COMPANY, INC., APPELLANT,
THE SHELBY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLEE
372 So. 2d 971
Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1979)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 15 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
The debtor, Fort Walton Roofing and Maintenance Company, Inc., argues that funds held by the garnishee which were designated “trustee special fund in trust for U.S. under Sec. 7512 IRC”, and which represented proper amounts of social security and withholding taxes, were not garnisha-ble. We agree. The fund was properly established and managed by the debtor pursuant to Title 26 U.S.C. § 7512, which specifically provides that the fund is a special fund in trust for the United States, payable to the United States by the depositor as trustee. REVERSED.
McCORD, C. J., and BOOTH and LARRY G. SMITH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (15 total)
-
Eagle-Picher Indus., Inc. v. COX, 481 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…ry sought in this case, that is, damages for a disease which has not yet arisen, differs from damages awarded for permanent injuries, that is, present injuries which will continue indefinitely. See Corbett v. Dade County Board of Public Instruction, 372 So. 2d 971, 973 n. 2 (Fla.3d DCA 1979) (future injury case noting distinction between permanent and future injury), cert. denied, 383 So. 2d 1192 (Fla. 1980). . The plaintiff also contends that the defendant’s initial objection to the evidence was later waive…
-
Bismark Diaz & Bis D. Corp. v. Osmel R. Rodriguez, 384 So. 2d 906 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…, allowing a party to present a new claim after the jury has ruled against him would amount to an impermissible sandbagging of his theretofore successful opponent — and the trial judge as well. See Corbett v. Dade County Board of Public Instruction, 372 So. 2d 971, 974-75, n.3 (Fla.3d DCA 1979). It follows that any initial attempt to call a matter to the court’s attention subsequent to the trial, so that another one would be required if the trial judge then agreed, is necessarily untimely. See Bishop v. Watso…
-
Thomas v. State, 599 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…at that hearing, and the court's ruling thereon was unequivocal and final. Hence, the purpose of preserving error below, i.e., to afford the trial court an opportunity to consider the issue in question, Corbett v. Dade County Board of Public Instr., 372 So. 2d 971, 974-75 n. 3 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert. denied, 383 So. 2d 1192 (Fla.1980), was fairly and completely served in this case. The courts of this state have recognized that there is no need to make further obviously vain and futile objections once an iss…
Previewing 3 of 15 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence