Hopkins v. Panama Plaza Construction Corp.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hopkins v. Panama Plaza Construction Corp.

237 So. 2d 8, 1970 Fla. App. LEXIS 6054

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided June 23, 1970·No. No. M-254·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This cause having been orally argued before the court, the briefs and record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the trial court dismissing with prejudice appellant’s amended complaint is affirmed. Jackson v. Pike (Fla.1956), 87 So.2d 410; Foley v. Hialeah Race Course (Fla.1951), 53 So.2d 771. Having reached the foregoing conclusion, we find it unnecessary to consider or decide appellee’s contention that the trial court erred in denying its motion for summary judgment.

Affirmed.

CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and WIGGINTON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

This cause having been orally argued before the court, the briefs and record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the trial court dismissing with prejudice appellant’s amended complaint is affirmed. Jackson v. Pike (Fla.1956), 87 So.2d 410; Foley v. Hialeah Race Course (Fla.1951), 53 So.2d 771. Having reached the foregoing conclusion, we find it unnecessary to consider or decide appellee’s contention that the trial court erred in denying its motion for summary judgment.

Affirmed.

CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and WIGGINTON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.

Hopkins v. Panama Plaza Construction Corp., 237 So. 2d 8, 1970 Fla. App. LEXIS 6054 (Fla. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

237 So. 2d 8 (Hopkins v. Panama Plaza Construction Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related