Huber Distributing Co. v. National Distributing Co.
307 So. 2d 176, 1974 Fla. LEXIS 4002
Opinions
The petition for writ of certiorari reflected apparent jurisdiction in this Court. We issued the writ and have heard argument of the parties. Upon further consideration of the matter, we have determined that the cited decisions present no direct conflict as required by Article V, § 3(b)(3), Fla.Const. (1973). Therefore, the writ must be and is hereby
Discharged.
It is so ordered.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Huber Distributing Co. v. National Distributing Co., 307 So. 2d 176, 1974 Fla. LEXIS 4002 (Fla. 1974).
307 So. 2d 176 (Huber Distributing Co. v. National Distributing Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Ervin v. Capital Weekly Post
97 So. 2d 464 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1957)
Charbonier v. Wynne
282 So. 2d 171 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1973)
Keating v. State Ex Rel. Ausebel
173 So. 2d 673 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1965)
Baker v. State Ex Rel. Hi-Hat Liquors, Inc.
31 So. 2d 275 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1947)
Keating v. State ex rel. Ausebel
167 So. 2d 46 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1964)
State ex rel. Investment Corp. of South Florida v. Harrison
247 So. 2d 713 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1971)
National Distributing Co. v. Huber Distributing Co.
283 So. 2d 122 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1973)