Forbes v. Stefan

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Forbes v. Stefan

410 So. 2d 575, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 19289

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided February 16, 1982·No. No. 81-1617·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellants failed to sustain their burden of proof to establish that venue of the action brought against them on an unsecured promissory note was improper, Davis v. Dempsey, 343 So.2d 950 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); failed to demonstrate the existence of genuine issues of material fact, Reflex N. V. v. UMET Trust, 336 So.2d 473 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); and failed to show gross abuse of discretion by the trial court in denying a continuance, Edwards v. Pratt, 335 So.2d 597 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellants failed to sustain their burden of proof to establish that venue of the action brought against them on an unsecured promissory note was improper, Davis v. Dempsey, 343 So.2d 950 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); failed to demonstrate the existence of genuine issues of material fact, Reflex N. V. v. UMET Trust, 336 So.2d 473 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); and failed to show gross abuse of discretion by the trial court in denying a continuance, Edwards v. Pratt, 335 So.2d 597 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976).

Affirmed.

Forbes v. Stefan, 410 So. 2d 575, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 19289 (Fla. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

410 So. 2d 575 (Forbes v. Stefan) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related