K. S. PARRISH, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
JOE THOMAS, R. W. BURCH, L. VAN LOAN, SR., AND L. VAN LOAN, JR., CO-PARTNERS, DOING BUSINESS AS L. VAN LOAN, DEFENDANTS IN ERROR

Fla. | 1924-05-24
Whitfield, P. J., and West and Terrell, J. J., concur.
87 Fla. 523 Florida Supreme Court (1924) Caution
Cited by 2 cases
Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam.

Per Curiam.

This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the judgment herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said judgment; it is therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that the said judgment of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby, affirmed.

Whitfield, P. J., and West and Terrell, J. J., concur.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Heriot v. The City of Pensacola, 108 Fla. 480 (Fla. 1933)
    …s to levy such tax for a local purpose.” There can be no question therefore that the Legislature could delegate to the City of Pensacola the power to levy the tax in question. There is no inconsistency in this holding and that the Roach v. Ephren, 87 Fla. 523, 90 So. 609, where it is held that the Legislature may pass an unreasonable law and the Court will not strike it down unless it violates an organic principle; but the Legislature may not delegate to the City the power to pass an unreasonable ordinan…

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw