DAVID H. SMITH, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
FAY GRUNER, JOINED BY HER HUSBAND, O. P. GRUNER, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
DAVID H. SMITH, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
FAY GRUNER, JOINED BY HER HUSBAND, O. P. GRUNER, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
102 Fla. 828
Florida Supreme Court (1931)
Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 136 So. 607
Cited by 12 cases
Opinion of the Court
— This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the judgment 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 judgment; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that the said judgment of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby affirmed.
Buford, O.J., and Whitfield and Davis, J.J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State of Fla. ex rel. Palmer-Florida Corp. v. Honorable Ray E. Green, 88 So. 2d 493 (Fla. 1956)…this state that mandamus is generally controlled by the equitable doctrine of laches rather than the statute of limitations. Tampa Waterworks Company v. State ex rel. City of Tampa, 77 Fla. 705, 82 So. 230; Little River Bank & Trust Co. v. Johnson, 102 Fla. 828, 136 So. 452; State ex rel. Shein v. Attwood, Fla., 64 So. 2d 917; Jumper Creek Drainage District v. State ex rel. Davis, 155 Fla. 669, 21 So. 2d 459. It is not suggested that the lapse of time has affected the status of either party. The first aspe…
-
State v. Snow, 113 Fla. 241 (Fla. 1933)…of [*245] Bay, et al., decided November 13, 1933; Klemm v. Davenport, 100 Fla. 627, 129 So. 904; State, ex rel. Dos Anigos v. Lehman, 100 Fla. 1313, 131 So. 533; Humphreys v. State, 108 Fla. 92, 145 So. 858; Little River Bank & Trust Co. v. Johnson, 102 Fla. 828, 136 So. 452. There is no contention here that the imposition of a tax for four years, including the current year, sufficient for interest and sinking fund¡ would be unreasonably heavy or result in the confiscation of property as was exemplified in…
-
Sholtz v. State, 121 Fla. 477 (Fla. 1935)…ollowing cases: “Columbia County Commissioners v. King, 13 Fla. 451; State v. Lehman, 100 Fla. 1313, 131 Sou. 533; Rountree v. State, 102 Fla. 246, 135 Sou. 888; State v. Baskin, 102 Fla. 329, 136 Sou. 262; Little River Bank & Trust Co. v. Johnson, 102 Fla. 828, 136 Sou. 452.” And by the writ in that case the respondents were required “to immediately convene and revise their estimate of expenses (annual county budget for the fiscal year 1933-1934) so as to include therein an appropriation item sufficient…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence