DENNIS M. SKOP, BY HIS FATHER AND NEXT FRIEND, ARTHUR U. SKOP, AND ARTHUR U. SKOP, INDIVIDUALLY, APPELLANTS,
v.
CARL D. BROREIN AND GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY OF FLORIDA, INC., APPELLEES
DENNIS M. SKOP, BY HIS FATHER AND NEXT FRIEND, ARTHUR U. SKOP, AND ARTHUR U. SKOP, INDIVIDUALLY, APPELLANTS,
CARL D. BROREIN AND GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY OF FLORIDA, INC., APPELLEES
222 So. 2d 250
Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (1969)
Caution
Cited by 7 cases
Opinion of the Court
Affirmed upon authority of Sandford v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., Fla.App.1962, 139 So.2d 916; Beikirch v. City of Jacksonville Beach, Fla.App.1964, 159 So.2d 898; Smart v. Masker, Fla.App.1959, 113 So.2d 414, and Redwing Carriers, Inc. v. Helwig, Fla.App.1959, 103 So.2d 620.
PIERCE, Acting C. J., and MANN and McNULTY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jordan v. State, 801 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…Jail. Jordan pled no contest to the first count of each information, in return for which the State agreed to nolle prosequi the two remaining charges. . The State cites In the Interest of W.M., 491 So. 2d 1263 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986), and Mas v. State, 222 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969), to support its contention that the "drug paraphernalia” language in the information was surplusage. But these cases are easily distinguishable from the instant case because the defendants were not charged with nonexistent offense…
-
In the Interest of W.M., 491 So. 2d 1263 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)…90.001(6), Florida Statutes (1985). The insertion of this language in the infomation, possibly for the purpose of determining whether the statutory mandatory minimum applied, is surplusage as it is not an element of aggravated assault. Mas v. State, 222 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969). Therefore, it does not matter whether a projectile would be propelled from the gun by means of an “explosive”. We find that a BB gun is a weapon that possesses the capability of inflicting great bodily ham and that the trial cou…
-
Carter v. State, 469 So. 2d 775 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…dgment of acquittal. The statute requires that the object thrown be capable of causing death or great bodily harm. The exact object need not be identified or produced if there is other evidence from which its nature can be deduced. In Mas v. State, 222 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969), the object thrown was alleged to have been a type of fire bomb,1 but the State was unable to prove the exact nature of the object since it exploded or [*777] burned when it was thrown. In affirming the conviction, the court held…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Beikirch v. City OF Jacksonville Beach, 159 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964)
- Martinique Hotel, Inc. v. Yetta Taylor, 139 So. 2d 916 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)
- Sandford v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 139 So. 2d 916 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)
- Bennie LE REA v. State, 113 So. 2d 414 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959)
- Zack Smart v. Masker, 113 So. 2d 414 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959)