Holland Paving Co. v. Dann

Supreme Court of Florida

Holland Paving Co. v. Dann

175 So. 2d 780, 1965 Fla. LEXIS 3170

Supreme Court of Florida·Decided May 19, 1965·No. No. 34096·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

By petition for a writ of certiorari we are requested to review a decision of a District Court of Appeal, which allegedly conflicts with prior decisions of this court.

Our initial examination of the petition and record suggested a possible jurisdictional conflict. We issued the writ and have heard arguments on' both jurisdiction and merits.

After a thorough consideration of the petition and record we are now led to conclude that no jurisdictional conflict of decisions is present. Finding, therefore, that the writ was improvidently issued, it is hereby discharged

It is so ordered.

DREW, C. J., and ROBERTS, CALDWELL and ERVIN, JJ., and WILLIS, Circuit Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

By petition for a writ of certiorari we are requested to review a decision of a District Court of Appeal, which allegedly conflicts with prior decisions of this court.

Our initial examination of the petition and record suggested a possible jurisdictional conflict. We issued the writ and have heard arguments on' both jurisdiction and merits.

After a thorough consideration of the petition and record we are now led to conclude that no jurisdictional conflict of decisions is present. Finding, therefore, that the writ was improvidently issued, it is hereby discharged

It is so ordered.

DREW, C. J., and ROBERTS, CALDWELL and ERVIN, JJ., and WILLIS, Circuit Judge, concur.

Holland Paving Co. v. Dann, 175 So. 2d 780, 1965 Fla. LEXIS 3170 (Fla. 1965).

Pincite

175 So. 2d 780 (Holland Paving Co. v. Dann) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related