JOHN J. KEARNEY, APPELLANT,
v.
CITY OF FORT PIERCE, APPELLEE
JOHN J. KEARNEY, APPELLANT,
CITY OF FORT PIERCE, APPELLEE
194 So. 2d 247
Florida Supreme Court (1967)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 6 cases
Topics
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Condition Precedent cases and more on FLexlaw
Opinion of the Court
The appellant, John J. Kearney, appeals from a final decree validating utility sewer revenue bonds and sewer improvement bonds of the City of Fort Pierce.
We have carefully considered the briefs and record and heard argument of the parties and find appellant’s contentions to be without merit. All requirements and conditions precedent of the Constitution and Laws of the State of Florida and of the Charter, ordinances and proceedings of the City of Fort Pierce, Florida, pertaining to the issuance of both issues of the bonds have been fulfilled.
The final decree is affirmed.
THOMAS, Acting C. J., ROBERTS, DREW and CALDWELL, JJ., and SACK, Circuit Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Durcan v. State, 383 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…hemselves and consider the merits. Wyche v. State, 178 So. 2d 875 (Fla.2d DCA 1965). The record must disclose that the aggrieved party intentionally waived any fundamental error before he loses the right to complain about the harm. Rollins v. State, 194 So. 2d 247 (Fla.1967). Since I cannot find that the defendant knowingly waived any right to complain about the error, I cannot agree that our consideration of this matter is foreclosed. I disagree with the lower court’s assessment of the evidence presented at…
-
Allwine v. State, 42 So. 3d 291 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)…who is found guilty of both charges is entitled to a new trial. Id. at 811. However, we affirm as to that issue in this case because the defendant failed to raise it in his first appeal, and instead merely sought re-sentencing. See Rollins v. State, 194 So. 2d 247, 248 (Fla.1967) (“[W]e held ... that the error involved ... was so fundamental that it need not be preserved by formal objection at trial. This is not to say, however, that such an error cannot be waived.”); Tindall v. State, 997 So. 2d 1260, 1261-6…
-
State v. Williams, 195 So. 2d 202 (Fla. 1967)…s of the district courts do in fact conflict directly on the same point of law. However, on petition for writ of certi-orari in this court, we quashed the decision of the district court in Rollins v. State, supra. Rollins v. State of Florida, Fla., 194 So. 2d 247, opinion filed January 25, 1967. The views expressed in our opinion are consistent with those expressed by the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, in the opinion under attack in this cause. Therefore, there is no longer a jurisdictional confl…