Martin v. Munshower

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Martin v. Munshower

660 So. 2d 794, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 9954, 1995 WL 553028

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 20, 1995

DocketNo. 95-1074

StatusPublished

This text of 660 So. 2d 794 (Martin v. Munshower) 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

Martin v. Munshower, 660 So. 2d 794, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 9954, 1995 WL 553028 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s non-final order granting the plaintiffs motion in limine to limit the evidence presented at trial on the issue of breach of oral lease solely to damages. In Munshower v. Martin, 641 So.2d 909, 911 (Fla. 3d DCA1994), this court previously determined that the buyer, the plaintiff below, is entitled to specific performance of the purchase and sale contract and consequently, to the damages that flow from the seller’s refusal to close.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s non-final order granting the plaintiffs motion in limine to limit the evidence presented at trial on the issue of breach of oral lease solely to damages. In Munshower v. Martin, 641 So.2d 909, 911 (Fla. 3d DCA1994), this court previously determined that the buyer, the plaintiff below, is entitled to specific performance of the purchase and sale contract and consequently, to the damages that flow from the seller’s refusal to close.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

660 So. 2d 794, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 9954, 1995 WL 553028, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martin-v-munshower-fladistctapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack