FORT PIERCE SCHIFFS, INC., AN OHIO CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
KEITH INVESTMENTS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEE
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 case involves a tenant seeking a declaratory decree to cancel a lease agreement because the landlord failed to meet a minimum building area requirement for a shopping center by a specified date. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision in favor of the landlord, finding no reversible error.
No, the appellate court found no reversible error in the trial court's decision. The court affirmed the declaratory decree entered in favor of the defendant.
“Plaintiff brought this proceeding under F.S.A. § 87.01 for a declaratory decree as to its rights under the lease.”
Establishes the procedural basis for the case and the relief sought by the plaintiff.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFort Pierce Schiffs, Inc. (plaintiff) leased premises in a shopping center owned by Keith Investments, Inc. (defendant). The lease agreement stipulate…
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 Lease Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiff, Fort Pierce Schiffs, Inc., appeals from a declaratory decree entered in favor of defendant, Keith Investments, Inc.
Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with defendant and went into possession of the premises which constituted part of defendant’s shopping center. Plaintiff notified defendant that it intended to cancel the lease agreement based upon the provision in the lease providing that the shopping center would contain a building area *22of not less than 200,000 square feet on or before October 1, 1964.
Plaintiff brought this proceeding under F.S.A. § 87.01 for a declaratory decree as to its rights under the lease.
The trial court heard the testimony of witnesses, examined'the exhibits, and carefully considered the issues raised. A careful examination of the record discloses no reversible error. Cohen v. Plymouth Cordage Company, Fla.App.1966, 188 So.2d 2.
Affirmed.
SMITH, C. J., and ANDREWS and WALDEN, TJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Fuller Indus., Inc. v. R. Terry Blazier & SON, Inc., 188 So. 2d 2 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)
- Cohen v. Plymouth Cordage Co., 188 So. 2d 2 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966)