JAMES H. COLCORD AND GERALDINE G. COLCORD, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
FLORIDA ROCK INDUSTRIES, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, D/B/A DENNY CONCRETE CO., ET AL., APPELLEES
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Taxation Of Costs cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Having carefully examined the record-on-appeal and having thoroughly considered the 12 points raised by appellants as well as the written and oral arguments advanced by the respective parties, we have concluded that the learned trial judge correctly entered the final judgment here appealed. One issue raised by appellants relates to orders entered by the trial judge taxing costs. Following final judgment which was entered pursuant to a jury verdict, both appellants and appellees filed motions to tax costs. After appellants filed their notice of appeal, the trial court, at the request of appellees, held a hearing on appellants’ motion to tax costs and subsequently entered two costs judgments differing in amounts in favor of appellants. Appellants urge that the trial court was without authority to enter those costs judgments. The Supreme Court of Florida, in Roberts v. Askew, 260 So. 2d 492 (Fla.1972) has held to the contrary.
AFFIRMED.
BOYER, C. J., and RAWLS and McCORD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Salvation Ltd., Inc., 452 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…ices v. Framat Realty, Inc., 407 So. 2d 238, 242 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Florida Commission on Human Relations v. Human Development Center, 413 So. 2d 1251 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). In Department of Business Regulation, Division of Beverage v. Huddle, Inc., 342 So. 2d 140, 142 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), this court said: It has always been the legislative intent that a special restaurant license under Section 561.20(2) was available only when there was a bona fide substantial restaurant operation primarily engaged in the s…
-
Shell Harbor Grp., Inc. v. Dep't OF Bus. Reg., 487 So. 2d 1141 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)…ensing statute is that a special restaurant license be available only to a “bona fide substantial restaurant operation primarily engaged in the serving of food and nonalcoholic beverages.” Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco v. Huddle, Inc., 342 So. 2d 140, 142 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977) (emphasis supplied). Given this intent, the reasonable interpretation of “equipped” is that it encompasses the legal ability to serve 150 people as well as the physical ability to do so. Otherwise, physical ability to do so…
-
G.G.P., Inc. v. Div. of Alcoholic Beverages & Tobacco, 479 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…appellant was that it was not guilty of culpable conduct in that its operation of the restaurant was not a subterfuge for the operation of a bar or cocktail lounge with only incidental sales of food. See Department of Business Regulation v. Huddle, 342 So. 2d 140 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). Appellant agreed that its gross sales experience during the year in question did not qualify it to continue holding the special license, and sought only to avoid having the license revoked on the notion that appellant was guilty…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Roberts v. Reubin O'D. Askew, 260 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 1972)