Farish v. Bankers Multiple Line Insurance Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Farish v. Bankers Multiple Line Insurance Co.

476 So. 2d 300, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2326

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 9, 1985

DocketNo. 83-1828

StatusPublished

This text of 476 So. 2d 300 (Farish v. Bankers Multiple Line Insurance Co.) 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

Farish v. Bankers Multiple Line Insurance Co., 476 So. 2d 300, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2326 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Contrary to the appellants’ contentions, we conclude (a) that the trial court neither lacked jurisdiction, see Bailey v. Bailey, 392 So.2d 49 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), nor abused its discretion, see Williams v. Nussbaum, 419 So.2d 715 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), in permitting the purported partners of the plaintiff Farish to intervene as parties plaintiff in the litigation involved in Bankers Multiple Line Ins. Co. v. Farish, 464 So.2d 530 (Fla.1985); (b) that there was no harmful error in requiring that the percentage partnership share in the judgment asserted by the intervenors be escrowed in an interest bearing account pending determination of the merits of their claim.

Affirmed.

SCHWARTZ, ALAN R.; HUBBART, PHILLIP A.; and JORGENSON, JAMES R., Associate Judges, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Contrary to the appellants’ contentions, we conclude (a) that the trial court neither lacked jurisdiction, see Bailey v. Bailey, 392 So.2d 49 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), nor abused its discretion, see Williams v. Nussbaum, 419 So.2d 715 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), in permitting the purported partners of the plaintiff Farish to intervene as parties plaintiff in the litigation involved in Bankers Multiple Line Ins. Co. v. Farish, 464 So.2d 530 (Fla.1985); (b) that there was no harmful error in requiring that the percentage partnership share in the judgment asserted by the intervenors be escrowed in an interest bearing account pending determination of the merits of their claim.

Affirmed.

SCHWARTZ, ALAN R.; HUBBART, PHILLIP A.; and JORGENSON, JAMES R., Associate Judges, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

476 So. 2d 300, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2326, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/farish-v-bankers-multiple-line-insurance-co-fladistctapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack