City of Melbourne v. Puma

616 So. 2d 190, 1993 WL 104644
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided April 9, 1993·No. 92-1038·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

616 So.2d 190 (1993)

CITY OF MELBOURNE, Appellant,
v.
Joseph Albert PUMA, Appellee.

No. 92-1038.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

April 9, 1993.

Paul R. Gougelman, III and Michael R. Riemenschneider of Reinman, Harrell, Graham, Mitchell & Wattwood, P.A., Melbourne, for appellant.

Ralph Geilich, Melbourne, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on the authority of Snyder v. Board of County Commissioners, 595 So.2d 65 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991), juris. accepted, 605 So.2d 1262 (Fla. 1992). See also ABG Real Estate Development Company of Florida, Inc. v. St. Johns County, 608 So.2d 59 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992).

AFFIRMED.

DAUKSCH, PETERSON and DIAMANTIS, JJ., concur.

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

City of Melbourne v. Puma, 616 So. 2d 190, 1993 WL 104644 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

616 So. 2d 190 (City of Melbourne v. Puma) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Martin County v. Yusem
664 So. 2d 976 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1995)
City of Melbourne v. Puma
635 So. 2d 159 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)
City of Melbourne v. Puma
630 So. 2d 1097 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1994)