Dunscombe v. Beach Club Colony of Stuart, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Dunscombe v. Beach Club Colony of Stuart, Inc.

264 So. 2d 465, 1972 Fla. App. LEXIS 6547

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 17, 1972

DocketNo. 71-904

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 264 So. 2d 465 (Dunscombe v. Beach Club Colony of Stuart, Inc.) 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

Dunscombe v. Beach Club Colony of Stuart, Inc., 264 So. 2d 465, 1972 Fla. App. LEXIS 6547 (Fla. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant brings this appeal from an order denying his motion to intervene, individually and as a class representative, in a suit pending before the lower court. It is clear from the allegations of his motion to intervene that appellant’s only interest in the litigation was that of a concerned citizen and taxpayer. It also appears that appellant was attempting to inject new issues into the proceedings. Consequently, the ruling on the motion was a matter within the sound discretion of the court. Riviera Club v. Belle Mead Development Corp., 1939, 141 Fla. 538, 194 So. 783; Oster v. Cay Construction Co., Fla.App. 1967, 204 So.2d 539; Charlotte County Development Commission v. Lord, Fla.App.1965, 180 So.2d 198; and 24 Fla.Jur., Parties, §§ 20 and 31. We find no abuse of discretion.

The order appealed is affirmed.

REED, C. J., and OWEN and MAGER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant brings this appeal from an order denying his motion to intervene, individually and as a class representative, in a suit pending before the lower court. It is clear from the allegations of his motion to intervene that appellant’s only interest in the litigation was that of a concerned citizen and taxpayer. It also appears that appellant was attempting to inject new issues into the proceedings. Consequently, the ruling on the motion was a matter within the sound discretion of the court. Riviera Club v. Belle Mead Development Corp., 1939, 141 Fla. 538, 194 So. 783; Oster v. Cay Construction Co., Fla.App. 1967, 204 So.2d 539; Charlotte County Development Commission v. Lord, Fla.App.1965, 180 So.2d 198; and 24 Fla.Jur., Parties, §§ 20 and 31. We find no abuse of discretion.

The order appealed is affirmed.

REED, C. J., and OWEN and MAGER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

264 So. 2d 465, 1972 Fla. App. LEXIS 6547, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dunscombe-v-beach-club-colony-of-stuart-inc-fladistctapp-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack