WILLIAM A. GOLLICK
v.
LAKE REGION HOTEL CO. (TWO CASES.)
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.
The Florida Supreme Court denied a motion to quash an appeal, finding that the decree being appealed was supported by substantial evidence and therefore affirmed the lower court's decision.
Yes, the decree is supported by abundant substantial evidence.
“In considering the motion to quash it has been necessary for us to study the record and also the brief filed on behalf of appellant Gollick.”
Establishes the court's review process for the motion to quash.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThis case represents the third appearance of the matter before the Florida Supreme Court. The current appeal concerns a final decree entered by the lo…
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 Substantial Evidence Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
This case is before us on motion to quash appeal addressed to final decree. Sections 2920 R. G. S., 4639 C. G. L., and 3173 R. G. S., 4965 C. G. L.; and Williams v. Dunn, 105 Fla. 327, 141 Sou. 190; Holtsberg v. McCrary (Fla.) 158 Sou. 123.
This is the third appearance of the case here. See Lake Region Hotel Co. v. Gollick, 110 Fla. 324, 149 Sou. 204, and same, 111 Fla. 64, 140 Sou. 205.
The motion to quash will be denied.
*371In considering the motion to quash it has been necessary for us to study the record and also the brief filed on behalf of appellant Gollick.
The disposition of the appeal now depends solely upon a determination of the question whether or not the decree is supported by substantial evidence. We find that there is abundant substantial evidence to support and, therefore, the decree appealed from should now be affirmed.
So ordered.
Affirmed.
Ellis, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
Whitfield, C. J., and Brown and Davis, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Blanche Pepple v. Rogers, 104 Fla. 462 (Fla. 1932)
- Holtsberg v. McCarty, 117 Fla. 554 (Fla. 1934)
- Lake Region Hotel Co. v. Gollick, 110 Fla. 324 (Fla. 1933)
- Williams v. Dunn, 105 Fla. 327 (Fla. 1932)
- Lake Region Hotel Co. v. Gollick, 111 Fla. 64 (Fla. 1933)