Moore v. State

139 So. 187, 104 Fla. 103
Supreme Court of Florida·Decided January 25, 1932·Published·Cited by 10 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

—This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the judgment herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the Court being now advised of is judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said judgment; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that the said judgment of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby affirmed.

Buford, C.J., and Ellis and Brown, J.J., concur.

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

Moore v. State, 139 So. 187, 104 Fla. 103 (Fla. 1932).

139 So. 187 (Moore v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Beck v. State
195 So. 143 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1940)
Parker v. State
194 So. 484 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1940)
Stephens v. State
191 So. 294 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1939)
Davis v. State
190 So. 259 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1939)
Mitchell v. Tucker
188 So. 573 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1939)
Tip Top Grocery Co. v. Wellner, Et Vir.
186 So. 219 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1938)
City of Hollywood v. Bair
186 So. 818 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1938)
Mathis v. State
184 So. 89 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1938)
Jones v. State
183 So. 732 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1938)
Padgett v. State
170 So. 175 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1936)