ALFRED LANDI AND MILDRED MAINIERI, APPELLANTS,
v.
MAX ENGELMAN AND ABRAHAM ENGELMAN, CO-PARTNERS DOING BUSINESS AS ENGELMAN & CO., APPELLEES

Fla. 3d DCA | 1967-12-05
No. 67-210
Before PEARSON, BARKDULL and SWANN, JJ.
205 So. 2d 687 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1967) Positive Treatment
Cited by 1 case

Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on the authority of Alberts v. Schneiderman, Fla.App.1966, 182 So.2d 50; Buttles v. Smith, 281 N.Y. 226, 22 N.E.2d 350 (1939); Buckley v. Stansfield, 214 N. Y. 679, 108 N.E. 1090 (1915); Darcey v. Brooklyn and N. Y. Ferry Co., 196 N.Y. 99, 89 N.E. 461, 26 L.R.A.,N.S., 267 (1909), and Bugeja v. Davis, 34 Misc.2d 276, 228 N.Y.S.2d 216 (1962).


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • State Rd. Dep't of Fla. v. Brenner, 208 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)
    …not only to attorneys’ fees in the appellate Court, but that such fees “must be assessed by that court” (meaning this Court). However, we have recently held in Campus University Apts., Inc. v. Audlane Lumber & Builders Supply, Inc., Fla.App. 1968, 205 So. 2d 687, that there is no authority for filing of petition for rehearing in this Court to further consider a previous order dismissing an appeal. The rationale of the Campus University case is that petitions for rehearing are allowable in the appellate Cour…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw