DAVID M. POMERANCE, ET AL., PETITIONERS,
v.
HOMOSASSA SPECIAL WATER DISTRICT, ETC., RESPONDENT
DAVID M. POMERANCE, ET AL., PETITIONERS,
HOMOSASSA SPECIAL WATER DISTRICT, ETC., RESPONDENT
783 So. 2d 1056
Florida Supreme Court (2001)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 1 case
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
We initially accepted review of the decision of the district court of appeal in Pomerance v. Homosassa Special Water District, 755 So. 2d 732 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000), based on express and direct conflict with the decision in Lake County v. Water Oak Management Corp., 695 So. 2d 667 (Fla.1997). Upon further consideration, we find that review was improvidently granted. Accordingly, this review proceeding is dismissed.
It is so ordered.
WELLS, C.J., and SHAW, HARDING, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, LEWIS and QUINCE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Childers v. Cape Canaveral Hosp., Inc., 898 So. 2d 973 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…e used is not required when to do so would lead to an unreasonable conclusion, defeat legislative intent or result in a manifest incongruity. See Las Olas Tower Co. v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 742 So. 2d 308, 312 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), rev. dismissed, 783 So. 2d 1056 (Fla.2001). “[I]f from a view of the whole law, or from other laws in pari materia the evident intent is different from the literal import of the terms employed to express it in a particular part of the law, that intent should prevail, for that, in…
Authorities Cited
- Lake Cnty. v. Water OAK Mgmt. Corp., 695 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 1997)
- Pomerance v. Homosassa Special Water Dist., 755 So. 2d 732 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)