JOHN FARO, APPELLANT,
v.
SIMPLEX MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC., ETC., ET AL., APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Corporate Merger cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Because, contrary to the finding below, the evidence as to the only disputed fact unequivocally establishes that Simplex, Inc. received the required consideration for the issuance of the shares of stock which are now in question, see § 607.0621(3),(4), Fla. Stat. (1999), we conclude that the plaintiff appellant Faro is entitled to the issuance of a writ of mandamus requiring a recognition of his ownership of 460,000 shares of the corporation, Music Tones, Ltd., into which Simplex merged. § 678.4011, Fla. Stat. (1999); Soreno Hotel Co. v. State, 107 Fla. 195, 144 So. 339 (1932); Hern v. Looney, 90 Wash. App. 519, 959 P. 2d 1116 (1998); 35 Fla. Jur.2d Mandamus & Prohibition § 61 (1996); see also Burtman v. Technical Chemicals & Prods., Inc., 724 So. 2d 672 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Schwadel v. Uchitel, 455 So. 2d 401 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). Accordingly, the order on appeal in case number 99-1288 denying mandamus is reversed with directions to issue the writ. The appeal in case number 99-1176 from an order denying a motion for preliminary mandatory injunction to accomplish the same result is moot.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Villa Bellini Ristorante & Lounge, Inc. v. Ciro Mancini, 283 So. 3d 972 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019)
-
SMLX Techs., Inc. v. Faro, 770 So. 2d 299 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)…PER CURIAM. SMLX Technologies, Inc. appeals an order issued after remand in Faro v. Simplex Medical Systems, Inc., 748 So. 2d 342 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). We conclude that the action taken by the trial court is entirely consistent with this court’s earlier opinion and affirm the order now under review.…
-
Faro v. Corporate Stock Transfer, Inc., 883 So. 2d 896 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)…interpretation and result here. Accordingly we reverse the final judgment and remand the case to the circuit court with instructions to permit Faro to amend his pleadings. Reversed and remanded with instructions. . Faro v. Simplex Med. Sys., Inc., 748 So. 2d 342 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) [Farol]. .Faro contends that the actual delivery time was such that the stock value had decreased from its value on the date it should have been delivered, a fact unknowable until actual delivery, thus he should have been permitt…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Soreno Hotel Co. v. State, 107 Fla. 195 (Fla. 1932)
- Burtman v. Tech. Chems. & Prods., Inc., 724 So. 2d 672 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Schwadel v. Hy Uchitel, 455 So. 2d 401 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)