PEDRO JIMENEZ, ET UX.,
v.
G. C. SPICOLA, ET AL.
PEDRO JIMENEZ, ET UX.,
G. C. SPICOLA, ET AL.
111 Fla. 570
Florida Supreme Court (1933)
Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 149 So. 477
Cited by 11 cases
Opinion of the Court
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.
Davis, .C. J., and Wi-iitfield and Buford, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
City of Kissimmee v. State, 121 Fla. 151 (Fla. 1935)…v. Carlton, 103 Fla. 810, 138 Sou. Rep. 612; Humphreys v. State, ex rel. Palm Beach Co., 108 Fla. 92, 145 Sou. Rep. 858; State, ex rel. N. Y. Life Ins. Co., v. Curry, 104 Fla. 242, 139 Sou. Rep. 891; Moran v. State, ex rel. Montgomery, 111 Fla. 429, 149 Sou. Rep. 477; Gerard v. State, ex rel. Pleus, 110 Fla. 307, 148 Sou. Rep. 552; State, ex rel. Mittendorf, v. Hoy, 112 Fla. 526, 151 Sou. Rep. 1; State, ex rel. Suwannee River Bridge Co. v. Sholtz, 114 Fla. 135, 154 Sou. Rep. 871. This Court has likewise felt im…
-
Sovereign Camp Woodmen of the World v. Lake Worth Inlet Dist. of Palm Beach Cnty., 119 Fla. 782 (Fla. 1935)…inkins v. Entzminger, 102 Fla. 167, 135 Sou. Rep. 785) Therefore while limited to the aggregate value or total amount of the special district benefits conferred on properties situate in the District (Moran v. State, ex rel. Montgomery, 111 Fla. 429, 149 Sou. Rep. 477), such ultimate limitation has reference to the total of the benefits that may be lawfully assessed as the resulting unapportioned benefit common and general to all of the property in the District considered as a whole, rather than to the benefits s…
-
First State Sav. Bank of Morenci v. Little River Drainage Dist., 122 Fla. 304 (Fla. 1935)…ts) authorized to discharge the outstanding obligations of the drainage district are restricted to the total amount of the district benefits ascertained and set forth in the plan of reclamation. See: Moran v. State, ex rel. Montgomery, 111 Fla. 429, 149 Sou. Rep. 477. Compare: State, ex rel. Smith, v. Butt, 111 Fla. 630, 149 Sou. Rep. 746, text 755 (special concurring opinion discussing Futch Acts of 1933). Therefore all funds on hand (the term “funds” here used being employed in the sense of tax liens capable…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence