BRUCE E. BRANE AND WILLIAM A. SCHMITT, APPELLANTS,
v.
EQUITABLE LEASING CORPORATION, A NORTH CAROLINA CORPORATION AUTHORIZED TO DO BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
BRUCE E. BRANE AND WILLIAM A. SCHMITT, APPELLANTS,
EQUITABLE LEASING CORPORATION, A NORTH CAROLINA CORPORATION AUTHORIZED TO DO BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
408 So. 2d 688
Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (1982)
Negative Treatment
Cited by 12 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the judgment in favor of appellee, it being implicit in that judgment that the court concluded that title to the golf carts and inventory of parts and accessories purchased by appellants had passed to them under the agreement for sale between the parties. We grant appellee’s motion for attorney’s fees and remand to the trial court for determination of a reasonable fee.
SCHEB, C.J., and RYDER and SCHOON-OVER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Connelly v. Arrow AIR, Inc., 568 So. 2d 448 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…e evidence for the purpose of resolving the conflict. City of Live Oak v. Arnold, 468 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Kent Ins. Co. v. Glades Liquors, Inc., 418 So. 2d 1101 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), rev. denied, 429 So. 2d 6 (Fla.1983); Davis v. Hathaway, 408 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Burkett v. Parker, 410 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Campanella v. Shuford, 336 So. 2d 1257 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). On the record before us, jury issues are present. Reversed and remanded for further proceedings. . Fisher v. She…
-
City OF Live OAK v. Arnold, 468 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…d may not weigh the evidence in order to arrive at a factual conclusion necessary for granting of summary judgment. Campanella v. Shuford, 336 So. 2d 1257 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); Burkett v. Parker, 410 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Davis v. Hathaway, 408 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982).…
-
Daytona Dev. Corp. v. McFARLAND, 505 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)…y theoretically a valid interest. The argument is that the attorney’s work provided the developer with a less than fully enforceable interest. We agree that there is a fact issue in this regard precluding the summary judgment. See Davis v. Hathaway, 408 So. 2d 688, 689 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). That issue involves whether the deductions in payments to the developer referred to in Sauder are com-pensable losses proximately resulting from the attorney’s conduct or, as the attorney argues, proximately result from acti…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence