MARWIN S. CASSEL, AS TRUSTEE, APPELLANT,
v.
I. R. E. FINANCIAL CORPORATION, APPELLEE
PER CURIAM.
This is the second appeal in this case wherein appellant charges appellee with usury. For a statement of the facts and issues, see our prior opinion, I. R. E. Financial Corporation v. Cassel, 335 So. 2d 598 (Fla.3d DCA 1976).
We have carefully considered the points on appeal in the light of the record, briefs and arguments of counsel and have concluded that no reversible error has been made to appear. See Plapinger v. Eckerd’s Silver Star, Inc., 360 So. 2d 445 (Fla.3d DCA 1978), cert. denied 366 So. 2d 883 (Fla.1979); Dixon v. Sharp, 276 So. 2d 817 (Fla.1973); Mid State Homes, Inc. v. Staines, 161 So. 2d 569 (Fla.2d DCA), cert. denied 166 So. 2d 594 (Fla.1964); Indian Lake Estates, Inc. v. Special Investments, Inc., 154 So. 2d 883, 890 (Fla.2d DCA 1963); Davidson v. Davis, 59 Fla. 476, 52 So. 139 (Fla.1910).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (25 total)
-
Alamo Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Mancusi, 632 So. 2d 1352 (Fla. 1994)…OVERTON, Justice. We have for review Alamo Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Mancusi, 599 So. 2d 1010 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), based on direct conflict with Gatto v. Publix Supermarket, Inc., 387 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. For the reasons expressed, we approve in part and quash in part the district court’s decision in this malicious prosecution case, and we remand this cause for a new trial. The…
-
Maye G. Neil v. S. Fla. Auto Painters, Inc., 397 So. 2d 1160 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…of serving the pleading the pleader has against any opposing party .... ” (emphasis supplied). A malicious prosecution action requires as one of its essential elements a bona fide termination of the “prosecution.” Gatto v. Publix Supermarket, Inc., 387 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). Thus, a malicious prosecution action cannot be brought as a counterclaim, and a fortiori cannot be a compulsory counterclaim when the “prosecution” said to be malicious is the pending action of the opposing party. Blue v. Weinste…
-
Meyer Weissman and Anna Weissman v. K-Mart Corp., 396 So. 2d 1164 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…gree of probable cause necessary to support a temporary detention of a suspected shoplifter by a merchant or a merchant’s employee does not reach the level of probable cause required to support a later prosecution. Gatto v. Publix Supermarket, Inc., 387 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Food Fair Stores, Inc. v. Kincaid, 335 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976); Rothstein v. Jackson’s of Coral Gables, Inc., 133 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961). With this in mind, and finding the existence of material issues of fact, the s…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 25 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Dixon v. Sharp, 276 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 1973)
- Davidson v. Davis, 59 Fla. 476 (Fla. 1910)
- Indian Lake Ests., Inc. v. Special Invs., Inc., 154 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)
- Mid-State Homes, Inc. v. Staines, 161 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)
- Katz v. Katz, 166 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 1964)
- Zimand Enters., Inc. v. Friedman, 166 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 1964)
- I. R. E. Fin. Corp. v. Marwin S. Cassel, 335 So. 2d 598 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
- Plapinger v. Eckerd's Silver Star, Inc., 360 So. 2d 445 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)