Czellar v. duPont

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Czellar v. duPont

227 So. 2d 882, 1969 Fla. App. LEXIS 5182

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 12, 1969

DocketNo. 69-163

StatusPublished

This text of 227 So. 2d 882 (Czellar v. duPont) 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

Czellar v. duPont, 227 So. 2d 882, 1969 Fla. App. LEXIS 5182 (Fla. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The trial court entered a summary judgment for the defendant. In that judgment the court set out certain material facts. On this appeal appellant agrees that the facts set out are correct and undisputed but urges that the summary judgment was erroneously granted as a matter of law.

We hold otherwise. On review of the record and briefs, we conclude that on the facts disclosed the trial court was eminently correct in holding that the defendant was entitled to a summary judgment. Moreover we think it should be pointed out that the damages urged in argument before this court were not recoverable. Cf. Barrow v. Curtis, Fla.App.1968, 209 So.2d 699; Courtney v. American Oil Company, Fla. App.1969, 220 So.2d 675.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The trial court entered a summary judgment for the defendant. In that judgment the court set out certain material facts. On this appeal appellant agrees that the facts set out are correct and undisputed but urges that the summary judgment was erroneously granted as a matter of law.

We hold otherwise. On review of the record and briefs, we conclude that on the facts disclosed the trial court was eminently correct in holding that the defendant was entitled to a summary judgment. Moreover we think it should be pointed out that the damages urged in argument before this court were not recoverable. Cf. Barrow v. Curtis, Fla.App.1968, 209 So.2d 699; Courtney v. American Oil Company, Fla. App.1969, 220 So.2d 675.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

227 So. 2d 882, 1969 Fla. App. LEXIS 5182, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/czellar-v-dupont-fladistctapp-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack