G. R. FERLITA, APPELLANT,
v.
PAOLA FIGARROTA, PHILIPO LODATO, AND JIM LODATO, CO-PARTNERS TRADING UNDER THE FIRM NAME OF FLORIDA MACARONI COMPANY, APPELLEES
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 decree, denying a stay order. The court found no errors in the appealed decree after reviewing the record and arguments.
The Florida Supreme Court held that there were no errors in the decree appealed from and therefore denied the stay order.
“the record having been seen and inspected, 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 said decree appealed from.”
This quote establishes the court's finding after reviewing the case materials.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant, G. R. Ferlita, appealed a decree from the Circuit Court. The appellees are Paola Figarrota, Philipo Lodato, and Jim Lodato, co-partners…
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 Stay Order cases and more on FLexlaw
This cause having been heretofore submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the decree herein, and upon briefs and arguments of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, 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 said decree appealed from. It is therefore considered, ordered and adjudged by this Court that the stay order applied- for be denied, and the decree of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby affirmed. For the proceedings to which this subsequently instituted chancery case relates, see Ferlita vs. Figarotta (opinion filed this Term, August 24, 1932), 106 Fla. 578, 145 Sou. Rep. 605.
‘Stay order denied. Decree appealed from affirmed.
Whitfield, P.J., and Teeeell and Davis, J.J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Morris v. State, 110 Fla. 95 (Fla. 1933)…as part of a [*97] bill of exceptions in the case, only when such matters in pais copied in the transcript are properly referred to and identified by some appropriate reference contained in the bill of exceptions. Ferlita v. Figorrata, 107 Fla. 489, 145 Sou. Rep. 607; Kidd v. City of Jacksonville, 99 Fla. 1023, 128 Sou. Rep. 31. The overruling of the assignments of error relating to the County Judge’s denial of defendant’s request for thirty minutes for argument, instead of twenty minutes as allowed, was not a…
-
Hunter Henderson v. Paola Ficarrotta, 113 Fla. 259 (Fla. 1933)…error in the said order; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that the said order of the circuit court be, and the same is hereby affirmed. [*260] For other opinions and orders covering this case see Farlita v. Figarrota, 107 Fla. 489, 145 Sou. 605, 607; Ferlita v. Figarrota, decided at the present term. Davis, C. J., and Whitfield and Buford, J. J., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Segall Inv. Co., Inc. v. Rosedale Delicatessen, Inc., 106 Fla. 578 (Fla. 1932)