Lubarr v. Waldman

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Lubarr v. Waldman

212 So. 2d 664, 1968 Fla. App. LEXIS 5336

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided July 30, 1968·No. No. 67-980·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We have carefully reviewed the record on appeal and considered the briefs and [665]*665arguments of counsel. We have concluded therefrom that, notwithstanding the court’s failure to consider the evidence in the light of § 55.56, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., then in effect,¹ defendant’s evidence was sufficient to support the court’s finding in his favor. State Plant Board v. Smith, Fla.1959, 110 So.2d 401; Richards v. Samuel, Fla.App.1966, 184 So.2d 516. We further hold that appellant’s remaining points are without substantial merit. Central Hardware Co. v. Stampler, Fla.App.1965, 180 So.2d 205.

No harmful error having been made to appear, the judgment appealed is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

We have carefully reviewed the record on appeal and considered the briefs and [665]*665arguments of counsel. We have concluded therefrom that, notwithstanding the court’s failure to consider the evidence in the light of § 55.56, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., then in effect,¹ defendant’s evidence was sufficient to support the court’s finding in his favor. State Plant Board v. Smith, Fla.1959, 110 So.2d 401; Richards v. Samuel, Fla.App.1966, 184 So.2d 516. We further hold that appellant’s remaining points are without substantial merit. Central Hardware Co. v. Stampler, Fla.App.1965, 180 So.2d 205.

No harmful error having been made to appear, the judgment appealed is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Lubarr v. Waldman, 212 So. 2d 664, 1968 Fla. App. LEXIS 5336 (Fla. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

212 So. 2d 664 (Lubarr v. Waldman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related