City of Daytona Beach v. Huhn

468 So. 2d 963, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 221, 1985 Fla. LEXIS 2955
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedApril 4, 1985
Docket65454
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 468 So. 2d 963 (City of Daytona Beach v. Huhn) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
City of Daytona Beach v. Huhn, 468 So. 2d 963, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 221, 1985 Fla. LEXIS 2955 (Fla. 1985).

Opinion

468 So.2d 963 (1985)

CITY OF DAYTONA BEACH, et al., Petitioners,
v.
Laura HUHN, Respondent.

No. 65454.

Supreme Court of Florida.

April 4, 1985.

Alfred A. Green, Jr. and Frank B. Gummey, III, Daytona Beach, for petitioners.

Dennis P. Dore of Haas, Boehm, Brown, Rigdon and Seacrest, Daytona Beach, for respondent.

Larry Klein, West Palm Beach, amicus curiae for The Academy Of Florida Trial Lawyers.

OVERTON, Justice.

We quash the decision of the Fifth District Court of Appeal reported as Huhn v. Dixie Insurance Co., 453 So.2d 70 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984), on the basis of our decision in Everton v. Willard, 468 So.2d 936 (Fla. 1985). We remand with directions that the trial court's order dismissing the respondent's complaint for failure to state a cause of action be reinstated.

It is so ordered.

BOYD, C.J., and ALDERMAN and McDONALD, JJ., concur.

EHRLICH, J., dissents with an opinion, in which ADKINS, J., concurs.

SHAW, J., dissents with an opinion, in which ADKINS, J., concurs.

EHRLICH, Justice, dissenting.

This case is on all fours with Everton v. Willard, 468 So.2d 936 (Fla. 1985), and I dissent from the majority for precisely the reasons expressed in that case. Judge Orfinger's opinion for the majority in the district court of appeal should be adopted as the decision of this court.

ADKINS, J., concurs.

SHAW, Justice, dissenting.

I would approve the well reasoned decision of the district court below for the reasons stated in my dissent to Everton v. Willard, 468 So.2d 936 (Fla. 1985), and Duvall v. City of Cape Coral, 468 So.2d 961 (Fla. 1985), released today.

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

Related

Department of Children & Family Services v. Chapman
9 So. 3d 676 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2009)
Pollock v. Florida Dept. of Highway Patrol
882 So. 2d 928 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2004)
Wallace v. Ohio Dept. of Commerce
2002 Ohio 4210 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2002)
Wallace v. Ohio Department of Commerce
96 Ohio St. 3d 266 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2002)
White v. City of Waldo
659 So. 2d 707 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1995)
STATE EX REL. OFFICE OF STATE ATTORNEY v. Kowalski
617 So. 2d 1099 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1993)
Dept. of Health & Rehab. Servs. v. Yamuni
529 So. 2d 258 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1988)
Ransom v. City of Garden City
743 P.2d 70 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1987)
Carter v. City of Stuart
468 So. 2d 955 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1985)
Trianon Park Condominium v. City of Hialeah
468 So. 2d 912 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1985)
Rodriguez v. City of Cape Coral
468 So. 2d 963 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1985)
Everton v. Willard
468 So. 2d 936 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
468 So. 2d 963, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 221, 1985 Fla. LEXIS 2955, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-daytona-beach-v-huhn-fla-1985.