MIAMI COLISEUM CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
FRED L. GALLUP, APPELLEE
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 a lower court's final decree, finding no errors. The court also ordered a portion of the transcript stricken due to its inadvertent entry and subsequent revocation.
The Florida Supreme Court found no errors in the final decree of the Circuit Court and therefore affirmed it.
“It is therefore considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that the said decree of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby affirmed.”
This quote establishes the court's decision to uphold the lower court's decree.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe case involved an appeal from a final decree entered by the Circuit Court on January 30, 1929. The appellant, Miami Coliseum Corporation, submitted…
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.
— This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the final decree-entered by the Court on January 30, A. D. 1929, 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 final decree appealed from. It is therefore considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that the said decree of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby affirmed. It is further ordered that the copy of the alleged decree of confirmation of sale appearing in the transcript be stricken from the transcript of the record because of the showing that such decree was inadvertently entered and subsequently revoked by the chancellor who signed it.
Affirmed.
Buford, C.J., and Whitfield and Davis, J.J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
C. Q. Farms, Inc. v. Cargill Inc., 363 So. 2d 379 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)…he act had been authorized . . .” The foregoing rule applies in Florida. Proodian v. Plymouth Citrus Growers Association, 152 Fla. 684, 13 So. 2d 15 (1943); Standard Oil v. Nickerson, 103 Fla. 701, 138 So. 55 (1931); Meyer v. Nator Holding Company, 102 Fla. 915, 136 So. 636 (1931); Love v. Brown Development Co. of Michigan, 100 Fla. 1373, 131 So. 144 (1930); Massachusetts Bonding and Ins. v. Hoxie, 129 Fla. 332, 176 So. 480 (1937) and Peace River Phosphate Mining Company v. Thomas A. Green, Inc., 102 Fla.…