Buckeye Holding Co. v. Kelly

327 So. 2d 196, 1976 Fla. LEXIS 4379
Supreme Court of Florida·Decided January 21, 1976·No. No. 46090·Published

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of certiorari reflected apparent jurisdiction in this Court. We issued the writ and have heard argument of the parties. Upon further careful consideration of the matter, the briefs and record, we have determined that the cited decisions present no direct conflict as required by Article V, Section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution (1973). Accordingly, the writ must be and is hereby discharged, Fla.App., 297 So.2d 869.

It is so ordered.

ADKINS, C. J., OVERTON, ENGLAND and SUNDBERG, JJ., SMITH, District Court Judge, and SHOLTS, Circuit Judge, concur. ROBERTS, J., concurs specially with an opinion.

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

Buckeye Holding Co. v. Kelly, 327 So. 2d 196, 1976 Fla. LEXIS 4379 (Fla. 1976).

327 So. 2d 196 (Buckeye Holding Co. v. Kelly) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Kelly v. Buckeye Holding Co.
297 So. 2d 869 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1974)