Dixie Operating Co. v. Exxon Co., U. S. A.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Dixie Operating Co. v. Exxon Co., U. S. A.

524 So. 2d 1131, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1136, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 1963, 1988 WL 47246

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 12, 1988

DocketNos. BJ-358, BE-318

StatusPublished

This text of 524 So. 2d 1131 (Dixie Operating Co. v. Exxon Co., U. S. A.) 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

Dixie Operating Co. v. Exxon Co., U. S. A., 524 So. 2d 1131, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1136, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 1963, 1988 WL 47246 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The factual setting for these consolidated appeals is set out in the opinion remanding BJ-358 to the trial court for specific determinations with respect to whether the alleged settlement agreement between the [1132]*1132parties should be enforced, and staying the appeal in BE-318 pending disposition of BJ-358. Dixie Operating Company v. Exxon Company, U.S.A., 493 So.2d 61 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).

On August 12, 1987, the trial court’s order determining that the settlement agreement was not enforceable was filed with this Court. On April 1, 1988, a per curiam affirmance was issued which was inadvertently styled BE-318, but was intended to affirm the orders appealed in both cases. This discrepancy was pointed out in Exxon Company’s motion for rehearing.

The per curiam opinion in BE-318 is hereby vacated. The trial court’s order denying Dixie Operating Company’s petition to enforce the settlement agreement and the final summary judgment in favor of Dixie Operating Company are both AFFIRMED.

SMITH, C.J., and WENTWORTH and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.

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