Mendez v. Clark Equipment Co.

503 So. 2d 912, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 13689
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided January 28, 1987·No. No. 86-1250·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. Pullum v. Cincinnati, Inc., 476 So.2d 657 (Fla.1985); Small v. Niagara Machine & Tool Works, 502 So.2d 943 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Cassidy v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 495 So.2d 801 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).

DANAHY, C.J., and SCHOONOVER and LEHAN, JJ., concur.

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

Mendez v. Clark Equipment Co., 503 So. 2d 912, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 13689 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

503 So. 2d 912 (Mendez v. Clark Equipment Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Small v. Niagara MacH. & Tool Works
502 So. 2d 943 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1987)
Pullum v. Cincinnati, Inc.
476 So. 2d 657 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1985)
Cassidy v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.
495 So. 2d 801 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1986)