CONE BROTHERS CONTRACTING CO., APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, APPELLEE
CONE BROTHERS CONTRACTING CO., APPELLANT,
STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, APPELLEE
384 So. 2d 154
Florida Supreme Court (1980)
Negative Treatment
Cited by 4 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
Case certified to resolve conflict between State of Florida, Department of Transportation v. Cone Brothers Contracting Co., 364 So. 2d 481 (Fla.2d DCA 1978), and State of Florida, Department of Transportation v. Edward M. Chadbourne, Inc., 358 So. 2d 605 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978).
Reversed. State of Florida, Department of Transportation v. Edward M. Chadbourne, Inc., 382 So. 2d 293 (Fla.1980), adopting Chief Judge Grimes’ dissent, 364 So. 2d at 490.
It is so ordered.
ENGLAND, C. J., and BOYD, SUND-BERG and McDONALD, JJ., concur. OVERTON, J., dissents for reasons expressed in his dissent in Chadbourne, with which ADKINS and ALDERMAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Senfeld v. The Bank of Nova Scotia Tr. Co. (cayman) Ltd., 450 So. 2d 1157 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…Halligan, 344 So. 2d 239 (Fla.1977); City of Lakeland v. Catinella, 129 So. 2d 133 (Fla.1961); McCord v. Smith, 43 So. 2d 704 (Fla.1949); Department of Transportation v. Cone Brothers Contracting Co., 364 So. 2d 482, 486 (Fla.2d DCA 1978), reversed, 384 So. 2d 154 (Fla.1980) (“A curative or remedial statute is necessarily retrospective in character.”); Grammer v. Roman, 174 So. 2d 443, 446 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965) (“Remedial statutes are exceptions to the rule that statutes do not come within the legal conception o…
-
Am. Cast Iron Pipe Co. v. Foote Bros. Corp., 458 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)…alligan, 344 So. 2d 239 (Fla.1977); City of Lakeland v. Catinella, 129 So. 2d 133 (Fla.1961); McCord v. Smith, 43 So. 2d 704 (Fla.1949); Department of Transportation v. Cone Brothers Contracting Co., 364 So. 2d 482, 486 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978), reversed, 384 So. 2d 154 (Fla.1980) (“A curative or remedial statute is necessarily retrospective in character.”); Grammer v. Roman, 174 So. 2d 443, 446 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965) (“Remedial statutes are exceptions to the rule that statutes do not come within the legal conception o…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Edward M. Chadbourne, Inc., 382 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 1980)
- State v. Edward M. Chadbourne, Inc., 358 So. 2d 605 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)