DIXIE OPERATING COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
EXXON COMPANY, U. S. A., APPELLEE; EXXON COMPANY, U. S. A., APPELLANT, V. DIXIE OPERATING COMPANY, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the trial court's order denying enforcement of the settlement agreement and the final summary judgment in favor of Dixie Operating Company were both correct.
This case involves consolidated appeals following a prior remand for determination of a settlement agreement's enforceability. The trial court ultimat…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Enforcement Of Settlement Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The factual setting for these consolidated appeals is set out in the opinion remanding BJ-358 to the trial court for specific determinations with respect to whether the alleged settlement agreement between the parties should be enforced, and staying the appeal in BE-318 pending disposition of BJ-358. Dixie Operating Company v. Exxon Company, U.S.A., 493 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).
On August 12, 1987, the trial court’s order determining that the settlement agreement was not enforceable was filed with this Court. On April 1, 1988, a per curiam affirmance was issued which was inadvertently styled BE-318, but was intended to affirm the orders appealed in both cases. This discrepancy was pointed out in Exxon Company’s motion for rehearing.
The per curiam opinion in BE-318 is hereby vacated. The trial court’s order denying Dixie Operating Company’s petition to enforce the settlement agreement and the final summary judgment in favor of Dixie Operating Company are both AFFIRMED.
SMITH, C.J., and WENTWORTH and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.