ALLEN RUSK, A MINOR BY HIS NEXT FRIEND, SAM RUSK, AND SAM RUSK AND DOROTHY RUSK, INDIVIDUALLY, APPELLANTS,
v.
JOHN H. MCDURHAM AND STONEWALL INSURANCE COMPANY, A CORPORATION, APPELLEES
ALLEN RUSK, A MINOR BY HIS NEXT FRIEND, SAM RUSK, AND SAM RUSK AND DOROTHY RUSK, INDIVIDUALLY, APPELLANTS,
JOHN H. MCDURHAM AND STONEWALL INSURANCE COMPANY, A CORPORATION, APPELLEES
374 So. 2d 1119
Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1979)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
Upon consideration of the brief, record, and oral argument of the parties in this cause, we find there is a genuine issue as to the material facts. The granting of the summary judgment was error. Manucy v. Manucy, 362 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Wills v. Sears, Roebuck and Company, 351 So. 2d 29 (Fla.1977). The order below is reversed and the cause remanded for a trial on the issues.
ERVIN, Acting C. J., and LARRY G. SMITH, J., concur. BOOTH, J., dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In re 36' Uniflite v. State of Fla. & Ponce Inlet Police Dep't, 398 So. 2d 457 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)…eal have held that the forfeiture provision does not apply to property of innocent owners or lienholders. See Metropolitan Dade County v. Garcia, 375 So. 2d 45 (Fla.3d DCA 1979); In re 1975 Grand Prix, Fla. Tag No. 1W-354912, Vin. No. 2K57S5A150910, 374 So. 2d 1119 (Fla.2d DCA 1979). In Griffis, the Florida Supreme Court, noted that the targets of vehicle forfeitures intended by the legislature are the “narcotics peddler” and “drug trafficker.” Penalizing an owner or his agent may possibly induce the owner to…
Authorities Cited
- Wills v. Sears, 351 So. 2d 29 (Fla. 1977)
- Shirmon v. State, 362 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)