Michael J. Edison & Co. v. Columbia Pictures Television, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Michael J. Edison & Co. v. Columbia Pictures Television, Inc.

837 So. 2d 1122, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 1833, 2003 WL 355235

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 19, 2003

DocketNo. 4D02-602

StatusPublished

This text of 837 So. 2d 1122 (Michael J. Edison & Co. v. Columbia Pictures Television, Inc.) 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

Michael J. Edison & Co. v. Columbia Pictures Television, Inc., 837 So. 2d 1122, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 1833, 2003 WL 355235 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm. We find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying appellants’ motion to intervene filed four days before the scheduled foreclosure sale. See Fla. Wildlife Fed’n, Inc. v. Bd. of Trs. of Internal Improvement, 707 So.2d 841, 842 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (holding that “intervention is a matter of a court’s discretion”); Hatcher v. Roberts, 478 So.2d 1083, 1086 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (finding no abuse of discretion in order denying intervention where motion was filed one day before final arguments were heard on defendant’s summary judgment motion which was filed three months earlier).

AFFIRMED.

STONE, WARNER and GROSS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm. We find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying appellants’ motion to intervene filed four days before the scheduled foreclosure sale. See Fla. Wildlife Fed’n, Inc. v. Bd. of Trs. of Internal Improvement, 707 So.2d 841, 842 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (holding that “intervention is a matter of a court’s discretion”); Hatcher v. Roberts, 478 So.2d 1083, 1086 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (finding no abuse of discretion in order denying intervention where motion was filed one day before final arguments were heard on defendant’s summary judgment motion which was filed three months earlier).

AFFIRMED.

STONE, WARNER and GROSS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

837 So. 2d 1122, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 1833, 2003 WL 355235, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/michael-j-edison-co-v-columbia-pictures-television-inc-fladistctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack