Meacham v. Noonan Construction Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Meacham v. Noonan Construction Co.

260 So. 2d 235, 1972 Fla. App. LEXIS 6935

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 23, 1972

DocketNo. O-488

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 260 So. 2d 235 (Meacham v. Noonan Construction Co.) 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

Meacham v. Noonan Construction Co., 260 So. 2d 235, 1972 Fla. App. LEXIS 6935 (Fla. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal challenges the correctness of a final summary judgment rendered in favor of appellees.

A careful examination of the record on appeal conclusively establishes the absence of any genuine triable issue of a material fact with respect to appellees’ liability for the damages suffered by appellants, and that appellees were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The judgment appealed is accordingly affirmed. 23 Fla.Jur. 281, Negligence, § 37; DeLuca v. Manchester Laundry & Dry Cleaning Company (1955) 380 Pa. 484, 112 A.2d 372; Kite v. Jones (1957) 389 Pa. 339, 132 A.2d 683; Cotter v. Bell (1965) 417 Pa. 560, 208 A.2d 216; Tuz v. Burmeister (Fla.App.1971) 254 So.2d 569; General Telephone Company of Florida, Inc. v. Mahr (Fla.App.1963) 153 So.2d 13.

SPECTOR, C. J., and WIGGINTON and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

This appeal challenges the correctness of a final summary judgment rendered in favor of appellees.

A careful examination of the record on appeal conclusively establishes the absence of any genuine triable issue of a material fact with respect to appellees’ liability for the damages suffered by appellants, and that appellees were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The judgment appealed is accordingly affirmed. 23 Fla.Jur. 281, Negligence, § 37; DeLuca v. Manchester Laundry & Dry Cleaning Company (1955) 380 Pa. 484, 112 A.2d 372; Kite v. Jones (1957) 389 Pa. 339, 132 A.2d 683; Cotter v. Bell (1965) 417 Pa. 560, 208 A.2d 216; Tuz v. Burmeister (Fla.App.1971) 254 So.2d 569; General Telephone Company of Florida, Inc. v. Mahr (Fla.App.1963) 153 So.2d 13.

SPECTOR, C. J., and WIGGINTON and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

260 So. 2d 235, 1972 Fla. App. LEXIS 6935, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meacham-v-noonan-construction-co-fladistctapp-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack