City of Melbourne v. Puma
This text of 616 So. 2d 190 (City of Melbourne v. Puma) 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.
Opinion
CITY OF MELBOURNE, Appellant,
v.
Joseph Albert PUMA, Appellee.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
616 So. 2d 190, 1993 WL 104644, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-melbourne-v-puma-fladistctapp-1993.