Henson v. Tic Tac Toe, Inc.

126 So. 2d 294
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided January 30, 1961·No. No. 60-310·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Robert L. Weed, Architect, Inc. v. Horning, 159 Fla. 847, 33 So.2d 648; Anderson v. Sokolik, Fla.1956, 88 So.2d 511; North Dade Plumbing, Inc. v. La Salle Building Corp., Fla.App.1959, 114 [295] So.2d 707; E. & E. Electric Co. v. Gold Coast 72nd Street Diner, Inc., Fla.App. 1959, 116 So.2d 660.

HORTON, C. J., and PEARSON and CARROLL, CHAS., JJ., concur.

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

Henson v. Tic Tac Toe, Inc., 126 So. 2d 294 (Fla. Ct. App. 1961).

126 So. 2d 294 (Henson v. Tic Tac Toe, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

E & E ELECTRIC CO. v. Gold Coast 72nd Street Diner, Inc.
116 So. 2d 660 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1959)
Anderson v. Sokolik
88 So. 2d 511 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1956)
Weed v. Horning
33 So. 2d 648 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1947)
North Dade Plumbing, Inc. v. La Salle Building Corp.
114 So. 2d 707 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1959)