Home/District Court of Appeal of Florida/Driver v. Tucker

Driver v. Tucker

613 So. 2d 145, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 2193, 1993 WL 39657
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedFebruary 17, 1993
DocketNo. 92-1789
StatusPublished

This text of 613 So. 2d 145 (Driver v. Tucker) 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
Driver v. Tucker, 613 So. 2d 145, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 2193, 1993 WL 39657 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellants have appealed a nonfinal order denying their motion for preliminary injunction by which they sought to enforce their alleged right to a prescriptive easement. It appearing that Appellants failed to present sufficient proof to overcome the presumption of permission, the order is affirmed. City of Daytona Beach v. Tona-[146]*146Rama, Inc., 294 So.2d 73 (Fla.1974); Downing v. Bird, 100 So.2d 57 (Fla.1958).

AFFIRMED.

ZEHMER, BARFIELD and MINER, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Downing v. Bird
100 So. 2d 57 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1958)
City of Daytona Beach v. Tona-Rama, Inc.
294 So. 2d 73 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1974)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
613 So. 2d 145, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 2193, 1993 WL 39657, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/driver-v-tucker-fladistctapp-1993.