Faro v. Simplex Medical Systems, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Faro v. Simplex Medical Systems, Inc.

748 So. 2d 342, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 16563, 1999 WL 1111766

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 8, 1999

DocketNos. 99-1288, 99-1176

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 748 So. 2d 342 (Faro v. Simplex Medical Systems, 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

Faro v. Simplex Medical Systems, Inc., 748 So. 2d 342, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 16563, 1999 WL 1111766 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Because, contrary to the finding below, the evidence as to the only disputed fact unequivocally establishes that Simplex, Inc. received the required consideration for the issuance of the shares of stock which are now in question, see § 607.0621(3),(4), Fla. Stat. (1999), we conclude that the plaintiff appellant Faro is entitled to the issuance of a writ of mandamus requiring a recognition of his ownership of 460,000 shares of the corporation, Music Tones, Ltd., into which Simplex merged. § 678.4011, Fla. Stat. (1999); Soreno Hotel Co. v. State, 107 Fla. 195, 144 So. 339 (1932); Hern v. Looney, 90 Wash. App. 519, 959 P.2d 1116 (1998); 35 Fla. Jur.2d Mandamus & Prohibition § 61 (1996); see also Burtman v. Technical Chemicals & Prods., Inc., 724 So.2d 672 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Schwadel v. Uchitel, 455 So.2d 401 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). Accordingly, the order on appeal in case number 99-1288 denying mandamus is reversed with directions to issue the writ. The appeal in case number 99-1176 from [343]*343an order denying a motion for preliminary mandatory injunction to accomplish the same result is moot.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

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

PER CURIAM.

Because, contrary to the finding below, the evidence as to the only disputed fact unequivocally establishes that Simplex, Inc. received the required consideration for the issuance of the shares of stock which are now in question, see § 607.0621(3),(4), Fla. Stat. (1999), we conclude that the plaintiff appellant Faro is entitled to the issuance of a writ of mandamus requiring a recognition of his ownership of 460,000 shares of the corporation, Music Tones, Ltd., into which Simplex merged. § 678.4011, Fla. Stat. (1999); Soreno Hotel Co. v. State, 107 Fla. 195, 144 So. 339 (1932); Hern v. Looney, 90 Wash. App. 519, 959 P.2d 1116 (1998); 35 Fla. Jur.2d Mandamus & Prohibition § 61 (1996); see also Burtman v. Technical Chemicals & Prods., Inc., 724 So.2d 672 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Schwadel v. Uchitel, 455 So.2d 401 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). Accordingly, the order on appeal in case number 99-1288 denying mandamus is reversed with directions to issue the writ. The appeal in case number 99-1176 from [343]*343an order denying a motion for preliminary mandatory injunction to accomplish the same result is moot.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

748 So. 2d 342, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 16563, 1999 WL 1111766, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/faro-v-simplex-medical-systems-inc-fladistctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack