CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG, ET AL.,
v.
ALVA C. MELLEN
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 affirmed the lower court's interlocutory orders that denied motions to dismiss and strike portions of a bill of complaint. The court found no error in the lower court's decisions.
No, the lower court did not err in denying the motions to dismiss and strike. The interlocutory orders were correct.
“it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said interlocutory orders”
This quote directly states the court's finding regarding the lower court's decision.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellants filed motions to dismiss the bill of complaint and to strike portions of it. The lower court denied these motions, issuing interlocutor…
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 Interlocutory Orders cases and more on FLexlaw
This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the interlocutory orders appealed from denying the motions to dismis's the bill of complaint and to strike portions of the bill of complaint herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having, been seen and inspected, and the Court being now advised, of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said interlocutory orders; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and decreed by the Court, that the said orders' of the Circuit Court be, and the same are,hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Whitfield, P. J., and BROWN-and Chapman, J. -J., concur.
Terrell, C. J., concurs in opinion and judgment.
Justices Buford and Thomas not participating as authorized by Section 4687 Compiled General Laws of 1927 and Rule 21-A of the Rules of this Court.