A. F. MCDAVID AND HIS WIFE MILDRED P. MCDAVID, APPELLANTS,
v.
TOWN OF BROOKER, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, APPELLEE
A. F. MCDAVID AND HIS WIFE MILDRED P. MCDAVID, APPELLANTS,
TOWN OF BROOKER, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, APPELLEE
218 So. 2d 195
Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1969)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 3 cases
Opinion of the Court
This is an appeal from a final judgment denying plaintiffs-appellants’ petition to have certain land owned by appellants excluded from the corporate limits of the Town of Brooker, Florida.
We have carefully reviewed the record and briefs and heard argument of counsel, and find and so hold that the appellants have failed to demonstrate reversible error. The trial court made a comprehensive finding of fact in his final judgment with which we agree.
The judgment appealed from is therefore affirmed.
WIGGINTON, C. J., and JOHNSON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tullis v. State, 556 So. 2d 1165 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…hnson v. State, 478 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), cause dismissed, 488 So. 2d 830 (Fla.1986); Smith v. State, 314 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975), cert. denied, 345 So. 2d 427 (Fla.1976), cert. discharged, 343 So. 2d 598 (Fla.1977); Martin v. State, 218 So. 2d 195 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969). We conclude that the exclusion of the testimony was correct and that, contrary to defendant’s assertions, the ruling did not violate the defendant’s confrontation rights as construed in Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 93 S…
-
Murphy v. State, 252 So. 2d 385 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)…tion from interviews with the appellant and there were no independent “tests” that their testimony as to appellant’s mental condition was incompetent. Appellant relies upon Cirack v. State, Fla.1967, 201 So. 2d 706 and Martin v. State, Fla.App.1969, 218 So. 2d 195 for this proposition. We do not think the authority cited supports a reversal here. The cases cited hold that where the testimony of a witness is based upon a particular evidentiary statement from the defendant the testimony may be excluded. [*388]…
-
King v. State, 412 So. 2d 882 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Bell v. State, 93 So. 2d 575 (Fla.1957); Miller v. State, 389 So. 2d 1210 [*883] (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Hampton v. State, 336 So. 2d 378 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 339 So. 2d 1169 (Fla.1976); Martin v. State, 218 So. 2d 195 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969).…