Marshall v. Bennett

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Marshall v. Bennett

495 So. 2d 208, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 9559

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 2, 1986

DocketNo. 86-789

StatusPublished

This text of 495 So. 2d 208 (Marshall v. Bennett) 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

Marshall v. Bennett, 495 So. 2d 208, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 9559 (Fla. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The court has carefully considered the record on appeal, all the issues raised, and the brief and oral argument of the Mar-shalls.¹ From such consideration, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting summary judgment for Paul and Barbara Bennett and Robert F. Lamons, Jr., Esquire. See Neil v. South Florida Auto Painters, Inc., 397 So.2d 1160 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).

Accordingly, the judgment below is ad-firmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The court has carefully considered the record on appeal, all the issues raised, and the brief and oral argument of the Mar-shalls.¹ From such consideration, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting summary judgment for Paul and Barbara Bennett and Robert F. Lamons, Jr., Esquire. See Neil v. South Florida Auto Painters, Inc., 397 So.2d 1160 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).

Accordingly, the judgment below is ad-firmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

495 So. 2d 208, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 9559, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marshall-v-bennett-fladistctapp-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack