Covenant Palms of Miami, Inc. v. Gustafson
207 So. 2d 488, 1968 Fla. App. LEXIS 5947
Opinion
The basic question in this appeal is whether the evidence before the chancellor sufficiently supports the decree in favor of the appellee, defendant-counter-claimant. We have carefully examined the record on appeal and find no basis for disturbing the [489]*489decree appealed. Alvarez v. Dumont, Fla.App.1965, 178 So.2d 352; Central Bank and Trust Co. v. Banner Trading Co., Fla.App.1963, 157 So.2d 201; Turner v. Noto, Fla.App.1963, 151 So.2d 303; DiMarco v. King, Fla.App.1962, 139 So.2d 750.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Covenant Palms of Miami, Inc. v. Gustafson, 207 So. 2d 488, 1968 Fla. App. LEXIS 5947 (Fla. Ct. App. 1968).
207 So. 2d 488 (Covenant Palms of Miami, Inc. v. Gustafson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Di Marco v. King
139 So. 2d 750 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1962)
Alvarez v. Dumont
178 So. 2d 352 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1965)
Turner v. Noto
151 So. 2d 303 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1963)
Central Bank & Trust Co. v. Banner Trading Co.
157 So. 2d 201 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1963)