Forbes v. Stefan

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Forbes v. Stefan

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

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 16, 1982

DocketNo. 81-1617

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 410 So. 2d 575 (Forbes v. Stefan) 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

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

Pincite

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

410 So. 2d 575, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 19289, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/forbes-v-stefan-fladistctapp-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack