L.V. MCCLENDON KENNELS, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
INVESTMENT CORPORATION OF SOUTH FLORIDA, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEE
PER CURIAM.
We reverse the summary final judgment. The movant has not conclusively demonstrated the absence of factual disputes as to: a) whether McClendon was acting as an authorized agent of L. V. McClendon Kennels, Inc. in the booking contract; Braidi Trading Co. v. Anthony R. Abraham Enter., 469 So. 2d 955 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); b) whether McClendon, personally, or on behalf of L. V. McClendon Kennels, Inc., established a business relationship with E. 0. L. Greene and Pearl Greene, his wife, under which McClendon Kennels, Inc. had legal rights; and c) whether the track was a third party to such an association so that a claim for unlawful interference with a business relationship could be asserted against it. See United of Omaha Life Ins. Co. v. Nob Hill Assocs., 450 So. 2d 536 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 458 So. 2d 274 (Fla.1984); Ethyl Corp. v. Balter, 386 So. 2d 1220 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), review denied, 392 So. 2d 1371 (Fla.), cert. denied, 452 U.S. 955, 101 S.Ct. 3099, 69 L.Ed.2d 965 (1981).
For the foregoing reasons, the summary final judgment under review is reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Polk Cnty. Bd. OF Comm'rs & Home Ins. Co. v. Emmett F. Varnado, 576 So. 2d 833 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…attendant or nurse. Florida Statutes do, however, reserve to the claimant the right to reject such selection, require another authorization, or to seek authorization by the JCC for a physician of the claimant’s own choice. Teimer v. Pixie Playmates, 532 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988), rev. denied, 539 So. 2d 475 (Fla.1989). There is substantial evidence in the record which would support the decision of the JCC concerning attendant care if there was a dispute between the E/C and the claimant at the present ti…
-
Butler v. BAY Center/CHUBB Ins. Co., 947 So. 2d 570 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)…ting physician to the employer and carrier. It, however, reserves to claimant the right to reject such selection, require another authorization, or to seek authorization by the deputy for a physician of claimant’s choice. Teimer v. Pixie Playmates, 532 So. 2d 37, 40 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). The Teimer court went on to observe, “Claimant has the right to veto the employer and carrier’s selection and compel the employer and carrier to authorize another selection.” Id; see also Cal Kovens Constr. v. Lott, 473 So.…
-
Colace v. Hamlet Ests., Ltd., 573 So. 2d 994 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…een offered, and the parties cannot agree on a treating physician, the claimant must seek a decision through the judge or risk paying the bill. Id., at 868; Chase v. Henkel & McCoy, 562 So. 2d 831, 832 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Teimer v. Pixie Playmates, 532 So. 2d 37, 40 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) review denied, 539 So. 2d 475 (Fla.1989); Ocean Manor Resort Hotel v. Garbalosa, 512 So. 2d 256, 257 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). • On the other hand, where the employee requests treatment for an industrial injury and the employer fa…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Politis v. Gen. Hotel & Rest. Supply Corp., 386 So. 2d 1220 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Balter v. Ethyl Corp., 452 U.S. 955 (U.S. 1981)
- United OF Omaha Life Ins. Co. & Tower Mortg. Corp. v. NOB Hill Assocs., 450 So. 2d 536 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- Dash v. Marx, 469 So. 2d 955 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Braidi Trading Co. v. Anthony R. Abraham Enters., Inc., 469 So. 2d 955 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)