RICHARD CAMPBELL AND EDWARD CAMPBELL, AS EXECUTORS OF THE ESTATE OF JOHN W. CAMPBELL, DECEASED, APPELLANTS,
v.
PYMS-SUCHMAN REAL ESTATE CO., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND LEWIS F. HARDER, APPELLEES
RICHARD CAMPBELL AND EDWARD CAMPBELL, AS EXECUTORS OF THE ESTATE OF JOHN W. CAMPBELL, DECEASED, APPELLANTS,
PYMS-SUCHMAN REAL ESTATE CO., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND LEWIS F. HARDER, APPELLEES
369 So. 2d 416
Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1979)
Caution
Cited by 24 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
The contract in the instant case is somewhat different from the contract in Campbell v. Pace, 369 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). However, it arose under similar situations to that in the cited case; the only material difference being that the brokers in the instant matter were to receive interest on their deferred brokerage commission, which was likewise payable out of the payments received by John W. Campbell on an installment basis.
We find no error in the summary judgment under review, and affirm on the authority of Campbell v. Pace, supra.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
State v. Zamora, 534 So. 2d 864 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…r indictment without first ordering an in camera review of the informant’s testimony to determine whether the said testimony is relevant and helpful to a defense of the accused, State v. Jimenez, 428 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); State v. Williams, 369 So. 2d. 416 (Fla. 3d DCA [*871] 1979); obviously, this requirement only applies where the defendant seeks disclosure under the first component of the Roviaro exception. In any event, no dismissal order can stand where the trial court was in error in the first i…
-
State v. Acosta, 439 So. 2d 1024 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…nse, disclosure is not required. Doe v. State, 262 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972). Disclosure is only helpful to the defense if the testimony of the informant would exculpate the defendant or materially vary from that of the police. State v. Williams, 369 So. 2d 416 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). The appropriate procedure for determining whether the confidential informant is an essential witness for the defense is an in camera hearing. See United States v. Fischer, 531 F. 2d 783 (5th Cir.1976); Coby v. State, 397 So. 2d…
-
State v. Roberts, 686 So. 2d 722 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…i. On remand, the trial court shall vacate the order compelling disclosure until it determines, after an in camera hearing, whether the informant’s testimony would be relevant and helpful to Roberts’ misidentification defense. See State v. Williams, 369 So. 2d 416, 418 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) (remanding for in camera hearing to determine if the confidential informants’ testimony “would tend to exculpate the defendants or if it would be materially at variance with the testimony of the police officers”). Petition…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Campbell v. Pace, 369 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)