Lovaas v. Gallo

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Lovaas v. Gallo

726 So. 2d 401, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 1901, 1999 WL 89383

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 24, 1999

DocketNo. 98-1778

StatusPublished

This text of 726 So. 2d 401 (Lovaas v. Gallo) 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

Lovaas v. Gallo, 726 So. 2d 401, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 1901, 1999 WL 89383 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Because the appellant has failed to demonstrate that the trial court abused its discretion by granting the appellee’s motion to set aside a portion of the second amended final judgment, we affirm. Merrill Lynch Mortgage Capital, Inc. v. Hallmark Indus., Inc., 627 So.2d 12 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993), review denied, 637 So.2d 235 (Fla.1994); Marshall Davis, Inc. v. Incapco, Inc., 558 So.2d 206 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Graham v. Eisele, 245 So.2d 682 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Because the appellant has failed to demonstrate that the trial court abused its discretion by granting the appellee’s motion to set aside a portion of the second amended final judgment, we affirm. Merrill Lynch Mortgage Capital, Inc. v. Hallmark Indus., Inc., 627 So.2d 12 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993), review denied, 637 So.2d 235 (Fla.1994); Marshall Davis, Inc. v. Incapco, Inc., 558 So.2d 206 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Graham v. Eisele, 245 So.2d 682 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

726 So. 2d 401, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 1901, 1999 WL 89383, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lovaas-v-gallo-fladistctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack