Cross v. Town of Inglis

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Cross v. Town of Inglis

557 So. 2d 156, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 978, 1990 WL 13517

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 15, 1990

DocketNo. 89-1107

StatusPublished

This text of 557 So. 2d 156 (Cross v. Town of Inglis) 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

Cross v. Town of Inglis, 557 So. 2d 156, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 978, 1990 WL 13517 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiffs below timely appeal orders setting aside a default entered against the defendant Town of Inglis and dismissing appellants’ amended complaint with prejudice. We affirm. No error occurred in the court’s decision to set aside the default. In dismissing the amended complaint the court relied upon City of Orlando v. Orange County, 309 So.2d 16 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975), affirmed Orange County v. City of Orlando, 327 So.2d 7 (Fla.1976). The amended complaint clearly seeks to challenge or question the town’s boundaries and appellants’ attempts to distinguish the instant case from City of Orlando are unconvincing. Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal.

AFFIRMED.

THOMPSON, ZEHMER and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiffs below timely appeal orders setting aside a default entered against the defendant Town of Inglis and dismissing appellants’ amended complaint with prejudice. We affirm. No error occurred in the court’s decision to set aside the default. In dismissing the amended complaint the court relied upon City of Orlando v. Orange County, 309 So.2d 16 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975), affirmed Orange County v. City of Orlando, 327 So.2d 7 (Fla.1976). The amended complaint clearly seeks to challenge or question the town’s boundaries and appellants’ attempts to distinguish the instant case from City of Orlando are unconvincing. Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal.

AFFIRMED.

THOMPSON, ZEHMER and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

557 So. 2d 156, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 978, 1990 WL 13517, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cross-v-town-of-inglis-fladistctapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack