ROY WHITE, PLAINTIFF M ERROR,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
ROY WHITE, PLAINTIFF M ERROR,
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
102 Fla. 915
Florida Supreme Court (1931)
Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 136 So. 604
Cited by 1 case
Opinion of the Court
— This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the judgment herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said judgment; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that the said judgment of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby affirmed.
Buford, C.J., and Whitfield and Terrell, J.J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
C. Q. Farms, Inc. v. Cargill Inc., 363 So. 2d 379 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)…he act had been authorized . . .” The foregoing rule applies in Florida. Proodian v. Plymouth Citrus Growers Association, 152 Fla. 684, 13 So. 2d 15 (1943); Standard Oil v. Nickerson, 103 Fla. 701, 138 So. 55 (1931); Meyer v. Nator Holding Company, 102 Fla. 915, 136 So. 636 (1931); Love v. Brown Development Co. of Michigan, 100 Fla. 1373, 131 So. 144 (1930); Massachusetts Bonding and Ins. v. Hoxie, 129 Fla. 332, 176 So. 480 (1937) and Peace River Phosphate Mining Company v. Thomas A. Green, Inc., 102 Fla.…