Armel v. King Spray Service, Inc.
188 So. 2d 585, 1966 Fla. App. LEXIS 5115
This text of 188 So. 2d 585 (Armel v. King Spray Service, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Bluebook
Armel v. King Spray Service, Inc., 188 So. 2d 585, 1966 Fla. App. LEXIS 5115 (Fla. Ct. App. 1966).
Opinion
Affirmed. See and compare: Cone v. Inter County Telephone & Telegraph Co., Fla.1949, 40 So.2d 148; Riddle v. Aero Mayflower Transit Co., Fla.1954, 73 So.2d 71; Davis v. Major Oil Company, Fla.App. 1964, 164 So.2d 558; City of Green Cove Springs v. Donaldson, 5th Cir.1965, 348 F.2d 197; 6 Am.Jur.2d, Assault and Battery, § 134.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
City of Green Cove Springs v. Yvonne Donaldson
348 F.2d 197 (Fifth Circuit, 1965)
Riddle v. Aero Mayflower Transit Co.
73 So. 2d 71 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1954)
Cone v. Inter County Telephone Telegraph Co.
40 So. 2d 148 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1949)
Davis v. Major Oil Co.
164 So. 2d 558 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1964)
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
188 So. 2d 585, 1966 Fla. App. LEXIS 5115, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/armel-v-king-spray-service-inc-fladistctapp-1966.