THE CITY OF LEESBURG, FLORIDA, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,

v.

CERTAIN LANDS UPON WHICH TAXES OR SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS, OR BOTH, ARE DELINQUENT; THE STATE OF FLORIDA, ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• J. H. "Jim" Williams v. Howard, 329 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 1976)
  …pounded from curiosity. These elements are necessary in order to maintain the status of the proceeding as being judicial in nature and therefore within the constitutional powers of the courts.” See also State ex rel. Fla. Bank & Trust Co. v. White, 155 Fla. 591, 595, 21 So. 2d 213,215 (1944), where it was said: “It is settled law that a court will not entertain a suit to determine a declaration of rights for parties upon facts which have not arisen, upon matters which are contingent, uncertain or rest in…
• Millard Caldwell v. North, 157 Fla. 52 (Fla. 1946)
  …hich in my opinion, was not abused. In this connection, see 50 A.L.R. 48; 69 C.J. 863; Crosby v. Burleson, 142 Fla. 443, 195 So. 202; In re Monks’ Estate, 155 Fla. 240, 19 So. (2nd) 796; State ex rel Fla. Bank & Trust Co. v. White, 21 So. (2nd) 213, 155 Fla. 591. My view is that our judgment should be one of affirmance. CHAPMAN, C. J., concurs.…
• In re the Est. of Elizabeth D. Mesker v. Fla. Bank & Tr. Co. AT W. Palm Beach, 158 Fla. 180 (Fla. 1946)
  …athed a “pendant diamond brooch” designated as “Item 26” to Countess Ethel de Jumilhac. She bequeathed other jewelry to her sister, Isabelle Oates. For a fuller statement of the facts see State ex rel. Florida Bank & Trust Company, et al., v. White, 155 Fla. 591, 21 So. (2nd) 212. The sole question here is the sufficiency and probative effect of the evidence to show whether or not Item 26 was the “pendant diamond brooch” bequeathed to Countess Ethel de Jumilhac. The appellant contends that there is no com…