MARVIN JOSE DIAZ AND DIAZ, GREENHAWT & STONE, M.D., P.A., APPELLANTS,
v.
SUSAN EPSTEIN AND STANLEY EPSTEIN, HER HUSBAND, APPELLEES
MARVIN JOSE DIAZ AND DIAZ, GREENHAWT & STONE, M.D., P.A., APPELLANTS,
SUSAN EPSTEIN AND STANLEY EPSTEIN, HER HUSBAND, APPELLEES
443 So. 2d 465
Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (1984)
Caution
Cited by 4 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
We reverse the order denying Defendants’ Verified Motion for Change of Venue pursuant to Section 47.122, Florida Statutes, upon authority of:
Hughes Supply, Inc. v. Pearl, 403 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). Florida Power & Light v. Troutman, 396 So. 2d 743 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981).
Hertz Corporation v. Rentz, 326 So. 2d 216 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976).
Reversed and Remanded.
LETTS, HURLEY and WALDEN, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Barnett Banks Tr. Co., N.A. v. Titusville Assocs., Ltd., 569 So. 2d 458 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…ERVIN, Judge, specially concurring. Contrary to appellees’ assertion on rehearing, I find no conflict between this court’s opinion and Wakefield Nursery v. Hunter, 443 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). It was this court’s decision that Wakefield is factually distinguishable, because it is unclear in that case whether the motion for summary judgment was timely filed. As to the parol evidence issue, I certainly have no problem…
-
Titusville Assocs., Ltd. v. Barnett Banks Tr. Co., 591 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 1991)…PER CURIAM. We have for review Barnett Banks Trust Co,, N.A. v. Titusville Associates, Ltd,., 560 So. 2d 1337 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), based on express and direct conflict with Wakefield Nursery v. Hunter, 443 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3),. Fla. Const. In 1985, Brevard County issued industrial revenue development bonds to finance an adult congregate living facility to be built by Titusville Associates. Under their financin…
-
Barnett Banks Tr. Co., N.A. v. Titusville Assocs., Ltd., 560 So. 2d 1337 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…as required under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510(c). The trial court sustained the objection, stating that rule 1.510(c) contemplates that the notice be served simultaneously with the motion. The court relied upon Wakefield Nursery v. Hunter, 443 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), which reversed a summary final judgment “because only eight days transpired between the date of the Notice and the date of the hearing whereas the rules clearly require 20 days notice.” Based on two full days of testimony and p…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- S.C. Ins. Co. v. Pasalodos, 326 So. 2d 216 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)
- The HERTZ Corp. v. Rentz, 326 So. 2d 216 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)
- Hughes Supply, Inc. v. Pearl, 403 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- Fort Pierce Hotel, Inc. v. Riverhouse Corp., 396 So. 2d 743 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)