L.V. McClendon Kennels, Inc. v. Investment Corp.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

L.V. McClendon Kennels, Inc. v. Investment Corp.

532 So. 2d 37, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2202, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 4153

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 20, 1988

DocketNo. 87-2482

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 532 So. 2d 37 (L.V. McClendon Kennels, Inc. v. Investment Corp.) 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

L.V. McClendon Kennels, Inc. v. Investment Corp., 532 So. 2d 37, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2202, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 4153 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the summary final judgment. The movant has not conclusively demonstrated the absence of factual disputes as to: a) whether McClendon was acting as an authorized agent of L. V. McClendon Kennels, Inc. in the booking contract; Braidi Trading Co. v. Anthony R. Abraham Enter., 469 So.2d 955 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); b) whether McClendon, personally, or on behalf of L. V. McClendon Kennels, Inc., established a business relationship with E. 0. L. Greene and Pearl Greene, his wife, under which McClendon Kennels, Inc. had legal rights; and c) whether the track was a third party to such an association so that a claim for unlawful interference with a business relationship could be asserted against it. See United of Omaha Life Ins. Co. v. Nob Hill Assocs., 450 So.2d 536 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 458 So.2d 274 (Fla.1984); Ethyl Corp. v. Balter, 386 So.2d 1220 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), review denied, 392 So.2d 1371 (Fla.), cert. denied, 452 U.S. 955, 101 S.Ct. 3099, 69 L.Ed.2d 965 (1981).

For the foregoing reasons, the summary final judgment under review is reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

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

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the summary final judgment. The movant has not conclusively demonstrated the absence of factual disputes as to: a) whether McClendon was acting as an authorized agent of L. V. McClendon Kennels, Inc. in the booking contract; Braidi Trading Co. v. Anthony R. Abraham Enter., 469 So.2d 955 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); b) whether McClendon, personally, or on behalf of L. V. McClendon Kennels, Inc., established a business relationship with E. 0. L. Greene and Pearl Greene, his wife, under which McClendon Kennels, Inc. had legal rights; and c) whether the track was a third party to such an association so that a claim for unlawful interference with a business relationship could be asserted against it. See United of Omaha Life Ins. Co. v. Nob Hill Assocs., 450 So.2d 536 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 458 So.2d 274 (Fla.1984); Ethyl Corp. v. Balter, 386 So.2d 1220 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), review denied, 392 So.2d 1371 (Fla.), cert. denied, 452 U.S. 955, 101 S.Ct. 3099, 69 L.Ed.2d 965 (1981).

For the foregoing reasons, the summary final judgment under review is reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

532 So. 2d 37, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2202, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 4153, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lv-mcclendon-kennels-inc-v-investment-corp-fladistctapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack