STATE OF FLORIDA, EX REL., CARY D. LANDIS, AS ATTORNEY-GENERAL, PLAINTIFF,
v.
J. E. HARVEY, A. E. MCGEEHEE, L. J. BATZ, PIERRE MAHAFFEY AND THOMAS N. TAPPY, DEFENDANTS
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.
This Florida Supreme Court case, decided by a per curiam opinion, addresses a demurrer and motions related to an information filed by the Attorney General. The court's decision was based on a stipulation that its ruling in a related case, State of Florida v. Prevatt, would apply.
The court overruled the demurrer to the information, denied the motion to quash the information, and granted the motion to strike portions of the information.
“That any decision rendered by this Court in the case of State of Florida, ex rel., Cary D. Landis, as Attorney General, v. A. B. Prevatt, J. G. Dreka, Lillian Frances Nordman, W. E. Swope, and G. A. Tyler, now pending before this Court and which case has been briefed and orally argued would be applicable and a precedent for any judgment to be rendered herein.”
This quote is from the stipulation of counsel, which formed the basis of the court's decision.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe case involves an information filed by the State of Florida, ex rel., Cary D. Landis, as Attorney-General, against several defendants. The defendan…
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 Stipulation Of Counsel cases and more on FLexlaw
-This cause having been submitted to the Court upon a written stipulation of counsel “That any decision rendered by this Court in the case of State of Florida, ex rel., Cary D. Landis, as Attorney General, v. A. B. Prevatt, J. G. Dreka, Lillian Frances Nordman, W. E. Swope, and G. A. Tyler, now pending before this Court and which case has been briefed and orally argued would be applicable and a precedent for any judgment to be rendered herein.”
It is thereupon considered, ordered and adjudged by this Court that the demurrer to the information herein be and the same is hereby overruled, that the motion to quash being directed at the information as a whole be, and the same is *245Hereby' denied, and that the motion to strike said portions of the information in this cause be and the same is hereby granted. See State ex rel. Cary D. Landis, Attorney General, v. Prevatt, et al., filed May 2, 1933.
It is so ordered.
. Davis, C. J. and Whitfield, Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
N.Y. Life Ins. Co. v. Oates, 122 Fla. 540 (Fla. 1935)…he mortgagors, but which mortgage is valid on its face. See First National [*560] Bank v. Ashmead, 33 Fla. 416, 14 So. 886; Hutchinson v. Stone, 79 Fla. 157, 84 So. 151; McEwen v. Schenck, 108 Fla. 119, 146 So. 839; Flowers v. Schenck, 110 Fla. 256, 148 So. 581. In Cobb v. Bear, 57 Fla. 370, 49 So. 29, the question of estoppel was not adjudicated. In Wilkins v. Lewis, 78 Fla. 78, 82 So. 762, the husband did not join the wife in executing a mortgage on her separate property, and the wife was not a free dea…
-
M. A. Smith (Successor to E. P. Duncan) as Liquidator of Bank of Pompano v. Jess J. Hogan, 117 Fla. 82 (Fla. 1934)…Chancellor in this regard. It, therefore, follows that the mortgage was void as a lien upon the homestead under authority of the opinions and judgments in the cases of McEwen v. Schenck, 108 Fla. 119, 146 Sou. 839; Flowers v. Schenck, 110 Fla. 256, 148 Sou. 581; Murphy v. Duncan, 111 Fla. 548, 149 Sou. 594; and Oates et al., v. New York Life Insurance Co., 113 Fla. 678, 152 Sou. 671. The decree appealed from should, .therefore, be affirmed. It is so ordered. Whitfield, P. J., and Brown, J., concur. . El…
-
Mrs. Winifred Alma McDonald v. McDonald Holding Corp., 122 Fla. 115 (Fla. 1935)…ans, 113 Fla. 839, 152 South. Rep. 623, and the views expressed by me in my dissenting opinion in the case of M. A. Smith, as Liquidator of the Bank of Wauchula v. McEwen and wife, 119 Fla. 588, 161 So. 68. See also Flowers v. Schenck, 110 Fla. 256, 148 South. Rep. 581, in which I said that the plea so far as its averments were concerned, set up a good defense, but because the rule requiring verification and certificate of counsel was ignored the plea should not have been permitted to stay in the record.…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence