JOSE LATA, D/B/A MADRID RESTAURANT, APPELLANT,
v.
EXCLUSIVE RESTAURANTS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 1966-06-07
No. 65-874
Before HENDRY, C. J., and PEARSON and BARKDULL, JJ.
187 So. 2d 104 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1966) Positive Treatment
Cited by 3 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See: Sun Coast, Inc. v. Shupe, Fla.1951, 52 So.2d 805; Stagg Shop of Miami, Inc. v. Moss, Fla.App.1960, 120 So.2d 39.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Metro. Dade Cnty. v. Sergeant Gerald Mingo, 339 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
    …nd not the reviewing court, even though the court may have reached a different conclusion on the same testimony. McFall v. Florida State Board of Dental Examiners, 173 So. 2d 458 (Fla.2nd DCA 1965); Florida State Board of Dental Examiners v. Graham, 187 So. 2d 104 (Fla.3rd DCA 1966). The court should not substitute its judgment for that of the administrative fact finder who heard the testimony and was in a position to evaluate the credibility of witnesses. Pauline v. Lee, 147 So. 2d 359 (Fla.2nd DCA 1962). A…
  • The Bd. OF Trs. & City Pension Fund for Firemen & Policemen in the City of Miami Beach v. Sistrunk, 310 So. 2d 405 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
    …ncurred in line of duty in the Police or Fire Department, or in the Unclassified Service as provided in Section 23, hereof, irrespective of the number of years of service.” . See also Florida State Board of Dental Examiners v. Graham, Fla.App.1966, 187 So. 2d 104, 106; State Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services v. Strickland, Fla.App.1972, 262 So. 2d 893, 894; In re Estate of Kant, Fla.1972, 272 So. 2d 153, 155; 1 Fla.Jur.1974 Supp., Administrative Law § 181; and the dissenting opinion in the very…
  • Pantages v. Metro. Dade Cnty. Elec. Contractors Examining Bd., 209 So. 2d 706 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
    …he judgment of the circuit court was void because the action of the Metropolitan Dade County Electrical Contractors Examining Board was void under the law established by this court in Florida State Board of Dental Examiners v. Graham, Fla.App. 1966, 187 So. 2d 104. Without determining whether the action of the Examining Board was void, voidable, erroneous, or lawful, we hold that the trial judge correctly determined that the appellant’s motion did not state a ground for relief under Rule 1.540(b) (4), Florid…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw