L & S TRUCKING CORP., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, PETITIONER,
v.
FLORIDA RAILROAD AND PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, RESPONDENT
PER CURIAM.
This cause is a petition for certiorari to review an order of the Florida Railroad and Public Utilities Commission. Nothing can be gained in reviewing the facts herein. The petition is granted and the order sought to be reviewed is hereby quashed, on authority of Alterman Transport Line v. Carter, Fla., 88 So. 2d 594.
TERRELL, Acting Chief Justice, and ROBERTS, O’CONNELL and BUFORD, JJ., concur.
TERRELL, Justice
(concurring).
Virtually the same facts and law involved in this case were involved in Alterman Transport Line v. Carter, Fla., 88 So. 2d 594. Although I dissented in the Alterman case, I concur in the foregoing opinion and judgment as it is now the controlling law.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Berloni S.P.A. v. Della CASA, LLC, 972 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…appellees prejudgment interest from the date of the contract. Because there was no pre-suit demand date in the record, this court found that the proper date to award interest from was the date appellees filed their lawsuit, citing Manning v. Clark, 89 So. 2d 339, 341 (Fla.1956) (interest on a liquidated damages claim was to be calculated from the date the claim became due and was demanded, or the date suit was commenced). We accept Berloni’s concession with respect to the due date and direct that prejudgme…
-
S. C. M. Assocs., Inc. v. Rhodes, 395 So. 2d 632 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)…’ damages. Therefore, ordinarily, S.C.M. would have been entitled to recover interest on the $3,280.40 from November 8, 1978, the date it was due. Peter Marich & Associates, Inc. v. Powell, 365 So. 2d 754 (Fla.App.2d DCA 1978). See Manning v. Clark, 89 So. 2d 339 (Fla.1956). Here, however, S.C.M. cannot obtain prejudgment interest because Rhodes’ November 8 tender exceeded the amount that was ultimately determined to be due. See Morton v. Ansin, 129 So. 2d 177 (Fla.3d DCA 1961). AFFIRMED. BOARDMAN, Acting…
-
ACE Delivery Serv., Inc. v. Boyd, 111 So. 2d 448 (Fla. 1959)…al opinion prepared by Mr. Justice Drew in that case. Since Alterman Transport Line v. Carter, supra, we have reaffirmed our adherence to the rule of that case in L. & S. Trucking Corp. v. Florida Railroad and Public Utilities Commission, Fla.1956, 89 So. 2d 339. In Alterman Transport Line v. Carter, supra, we undertook to explain the reasons for the exception announced in Redwing Carriers v. Mack, Fla.1954, 73 So. 2d 416. In order to make our position clear on this problem, which apparently has been the p…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Alterman Transp. Line v. Carter, 88 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 1955)