ROYAL SERVICES, INC., APPELLANT,

v.

AMCOR, INC., APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• Codie v. State, 313 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 1975)
  …v. State, supra, see Note 2, at p. 340. . State v. Brown, 177 So. 2d 532 (Fla.App.1965). . Loos v. Scarfone, 46 So. 2d 395 (Fla.1950). . Rule 3.191(d) (2) (i), Rules of Criminal Procedure. . 188 So. 2d 24 (Fla.App.1966). . Roberts v. State, 195 So. 2d 257, 258 (Fla.App.1967). .See Note 4, supra. . Cutchins v. Seaboard Air Line R. Co., 101 So. 2d 857 (Fla.1958). . 141 Fla. 508, 193 So. 762, 763 (1939).…
• THE Florida BAR v. Morey A. Rayman and John H. Duhig, 238 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 1970)
  …ate to such tests. Apparently, respondent’s offer to so submit himself was not accepted inasmuch as the record of the proceedings before the Grievance Committee or the referee makes no further mention of the respondent’s offer. See Roberts v. State, 195 So. 2d 257 (Fla.App.); State v. Brown, 177 So. 2d 532 (Fla.App.) ; Johnson v. State, 166 So. 2d 798 (Fla.App.) ; but cf. Kaminski v. State, 63 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 1953).…
• Sylvia v. State, 210 So. 2d 286 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
  …al evidence would disclose, and determined that it was something that could have been discovered prior to trial. Therefore, we find no error in his refusal to reopen the case. Harvey v. State, Fla.1956, 87 So. 2d 582; Roberts v. State, Fla.App.1967, 195 So. 2d 257. The appellant, Beauchamp, also urges that the trial court erred during the course of the trial, when it refused to require the chief prosecution witness to produce written reports which he had made. These were in the nature of private communicatio…

Authorities Cited

• Royal Servs., Inc. v. Maint., Inc., 361 F.2d 86 (5th Cir. 1966)