Aossey v. Nolting

483 So. 2d 894, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 564, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 6703
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided March 5, 1986·No. No. 84-1646·Published

Opinion

UPON MOTION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

We grant appellees’ Motion for Rehearing, vacate our opinion filed February 6, 1985, 473 So.2d 690, and affirm the trial court’s order which granted the appellees’ Motion to Stay and to Compel Arbitration. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Byrd,U.S. 105 S.Ct. 1238, 84 L.Ed.2d 158 (1985); Oppenheimer & Co., Inc. v. Young, 475 So.2d 221 (Fla.1985); Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner and Smith, Inc., v. Me-lamed, 453 So.2d 858 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), app’d 476 So.2d 140 (Fla.1985).

It is so ORDERED.

DOWNEY, ANSTEAD and WALDEN, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Aossey v. Nolting, 483 So. 2d 894, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 564, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 6703 (Fla. Ct. App. 1986).

483 So. 2d 894 (Aossey v. Nolting) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Dean Witter Reynolds Inc. v. Byrd
470 U.S. 213 (Supreme Court, 1985)
MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE v. Melamed
453 So. 2d 858 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1984)
Melamed v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.
476 So. 2d 140 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1985)
Oppenheimer & Co., Inc. v. Young
475 So. 2d 221 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1985)