Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Shihada
212 So. 2d 628, 1968 Fla. LEXIS 2167
Opinion
On a prima facie of showing of “conflict jurisdiction” we granted certiorari and have heard oral argument.
The decision under review is Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Shihada, 196 So.2d 14 (3d D.C.A.Fla.1967). Allegedly it conflicts with Glens Falls Indemnity Co. v. Lingle, 133 So.2d 78 (2d D.C.A.Fla.1961).
On further examination of the record and briefs we have concluded that there is no jurisdictional conflict of decisions. The writ is therefore discharged.
It is so ordered.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Shihada, 212 So. 2d 628, 1968 Fla. LEXIS 2167 (Fla. 1968).
212 So. 2d 628 (Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Shihada) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Glens Falls Indemnity Co. v. Lingle
133 So. 2d 78 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1961)
Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Shihada
196 So. 2d 14 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1967)