City of Daytona Beach v. Stansfield

District Court of Appeal of Florida

City of Daytona Beach v. Stansfield

247 So. 2d 753, 1971 Fla. App. LEXIS 6727

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 20, 1971

DocketNo. M-500

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 247 So. 2d 753 (City of Daytona Beach v. Stansfield) 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

City of Daytona Beach v. Stansfield, 247 So. 2d 753, 1971 Fla. App. LEXIS 6727 (Fla. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks reversal of a final decree permanently enjoining it from charging certain water customers outside its city limits water rates which are in excess of 133¾/3% of the rates which are charged to in-city customers for the same services, which said maximum rate differential was contractually agreed to by appellant at the time it acquired the water system previously servicing the subject outside areas. Said final decree also commands appellant to account for and refund all charges in excess of the earlier agreed to maximum differential.

We have carefully examined the voluminous record of testimony and exhibits before the trial court and considered the exhaustive briefs and oral arguments of counsel. Such consideration leads us to conclude that the trial court’s findings of facts and conclusions of law are clearly supported by the evidence and that no reversible error was committed in arriving at the decree and judgment appealed.

Accordingly, the same is affirmed.

SPECTOR and RAWLS, JJ., concur. JOHNSON, C. J., dissents.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks reversal of a final decree permanently enjoining it from charging certain water customers outside its city limits water rates which are in excess of 133¾/3% of the rates which are charged to in-city customers for the same services, which said maximum rate differential was contractually agreed to by appellant at the time it acquired the water system previously servicing the subject outside areas. Said final decree also commands appellant to account for and refund all charges in excess of the earlier agreed to maximum differential.

We have carefully examined the voluminous record of testimony and exhibits before the trial court and considered the exhaustive briefs and oral arguments of counsel. Such consideration leads us to conclude that the trial court’s findings of facts and conclusions of law are clearly supported by the evidence and that no reversible error was committed in arriving at the decree and judgment appealed.

Accordingly, the same is affirmed.

SPECTOR and RAWLS, JJ., concur. JOHNSON, C. J., dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

247 So. 2d 753, 1971 Fla. App. LEXIS 6727, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-daytona-beach-v-stansfield-fladistctapp-1971.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack