CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT, A PUBLIC CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
SOUTH FLORIDA CONSERVANCY DISTRICT AND PELICAN LAKE SUB-DRAINAGE DISTRICT, APPELLEES
CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT, A PUBLIC CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
SOUTH FLORIDA CONSERVANCY DISTRICT AND PELICAN LAKE SUB-DRAINAGE DISTRICT, APPELLEES
111 So. 2d 697
Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (1959)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 5 cases
Opinion of the Court
Affirmed upon the authority of State v. Everglades Drainage Dist., 1945, 155 Fla. 403, 20 So.2d 397; State v. Broward Drainage District, 1945, 155 Fla. 407, 20 So.2d 399; State v. Lake Worth Drainage District, 1945, 155 Fla. 408, 20 So.2d 399; State ex rel. Board of Sup’rs of South Florida Conservancy Dist. v. Caldwell, 1948, 160 Fla. 355, 35 So.2d 642, and State ex rel. Board of Sup’rs of South Florida Conservancy Dist. v. Warren, Fla. 1951, 57 So.2d 337.
KANNER, C. J., and ALLEN and SHANNON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Broward Nat'l Bank OF Fort Lauderdale v. Bear, 125 So. 2d 760 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)…and include every method by [*762] which one person can derive impressions or information from the conduct, condition, or language of another.” Embrey v. Southern Gas & Elec. Corp., Fla.1953, 63 So. 2d 258, 263; and Leighton v. Harmon, Fla.App.1959, 111 So. 2d 697. Essential in determining the application of the statute is the interest of the witness in the subject matter involved. The test of “interest” of a witness is whether the witness will gain or lose by direct legal operation and effect of the judgmen…
-
In the Estate OF Arlethia Parson v. Hendley, 416 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)…o offer testimony of disinterested third persons.” Id. at 875. We therefore conclude that the precedents (involving oral declarations of a decedent’s intent) do not establish the exception for which appellant contends. See, e.g., Leighton v. Harmon, 111 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959). It is also our conclusion that Section 2 is not intended to create an exclusion from operation of the statute. We view that section as simply a codification of the circumstances under which a waiver of the statute may occur. Th…
-
In re Est. OF Francis M. McGAHEE. Barbara Lea Perry v. Neesmith, 550 So. 2d 83 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)…l of the decedent.” § 733.201, Fla.Stat. (1987). “Parol evidence and circumstantial evidence are admissible when necessary to show what papers constituted a will offered for probate, and to show the proper execution of the will.” Leighton v. Harmon, 111 So. 2d 697, 701 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959).10 The Court below noted in its order that there was testimony from a witness to the will that she specifically recalled reading the document at the time the will dated September 21, 1977 was admitted to probate. This witness…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Everglades Drainage Dist., 155 Fla. 403 (Fla. 1945)
- State v. Broward Drainage Dist., 155 Fla. 407 (Fla. 1945)
- State of Fla. Ex rel. Bd. of Supervisors of S. Fla. Conservancy Dist. v. Millard F. Caldwell, 160 Fla. 355 (Fla. 1948)
- State v. The Lake Worth Drainage Dist., 155 Fla. 408 (Fla. 1945)