TOWN OF LARGO, IN PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
v.
HUGH RICHMOND
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 decision that the Town of Largo and certain lands within the city were bound for its obligations, including bonds and judgments. The court found that the issues raised by the town and intervenors had been previously settled in a prior appeal, and the intervenors' claims were based on evidence that the chancellor correctly evaluated.
Yes, the Town of Largo and the specified lands are bound for its obligations. The court found no reason to reverse the Chancellor's decision regarding the intervenors' liability, as it was based on evidence properly considered.
“The law of this case was settled in Richmond v. Town of Largo, 155 Fla. 226, 19 So. (2) 791.”
Establishes that the core legal issues had been previously decided.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFollowing a prior ruling in Richmond v. Town of Largo, other parties were allowed to intervene in the case. Evidence was presented, and the Chancellor…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Law Of The Case Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
The law of this case was settled in Richmond v. Town of Largo, 155 Fla. 226, 19 So. (2) 791. When the mandate went down, other parties were permitted to intervene, evidence was taken, and, on final hearing, the Chancellor found that the Town of Largo and certain lands in the City of Largo, which he set out in extenso, were bound for its obligations, including bonds and judgments previously entered against it.
The Town of Largo and the intervenors appealed. The appellee filed cross-assignments of error. The questions raised by the appellants were adjudicated in Richmond v. Town of *838Largo, supra. The questions raised by the intervenors turn on evidence taken by the Chancellor as to liability for said obligations, and we find no reason to reverse him on this point. His judgment is accordingly affirmed.
Affirmed.
CHAPMAN, C. J., TERRELL, BROWN, BUFORD, THOMAS, ADAMS and SEBRING, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Allen v. Town of Largo, 39 So.2d 549 (Fla. 1949)…oceeds of the bonds into public improvements. In his final decree the chancellor found that the property involved was in the same category as that belonging to Margaret W. McLaughlin, one of the intervenors in the case of Town of Largo v. Richmond, 157 Fla. 837, 26 So. 2d 900. The same chancellor had held that land of that intervenor should not be relieved of responsibility for the tax burden, and this court affirmed his findings. Anchoring his opinion in the present controversy to the conclusion he had re…
-
Ratner v. Cent. Nat'l Bank OF Miami, 414 So. 2d 210 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…here can be no de facto corporation where the filing of papers was not even attempted until eight months after the entity held itself out to be a corporation. See Richmond v. Town of Largo, 155 Fla. 226, 19 So. 2d 791 (1944), affirmed, 157 Fla. 837, 26 So. 2d 900 (1946). Compare Kansas ex rel. McCain v. Construction Enterprises, Inc., 6 Kan.App.2d 627, 631 P. 2d 1240 (Kan.App.1981) (no de facto or de jure corporation exists until articles of incorporation are both filed and recorded) with Cantor v. Sunshine…
Authorities Cited
- Richmond v. Town OF Largo, 155 Fla. 226 (Fla. 1944)