Mosby & Russell Engineering Associates, Inc. v. Hudson Co.

299 So. 2d 53
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedAugust 30, 1974
DocketNo. 74-121
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 299 So. 2d 53 (Mosby & Russell Engineering Associates, Inc. v. Hudson 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
Mosby & Russell Engineering Associates, Inc. v. Hudson Co., 299 So. 2d 53 (Fla. Ct. App. 1974).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion of appellant-third party defendant to dismiss on the grounds of improper venue. See, Dorr-Oliver, Inc. v. Linder Industrial Machinery Company, Fla.App.1972, 263 So.2d 237; United States v. Acord, 10 Cir. 1954, 209 F.2d 709, cert. denied, 347 U.S. 975, 74 S.Ct. 786, 98 L.Ed. 1115; McGrath v. Lund’s Fisheries, D.Del.1959, 170 F. Supp. 173; 6 Wright and Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, Section 1445 (1971); 3 Moore, Federal Practice, Section 14.28(2), (2nd ed. 1974).

Affirmed.

OWEN, C. J., and WALDEN and CROSS, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Coastal Power Products, Inc. v. Daytona Marina & Boat Works
357 So. 2d 473 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1978)
STATE, DEPT. OF TRANSP. v. San Marco Cont. Co.
355 So. 2d 133 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1978)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
299 So. 2d 53, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mosby-russell-engineering-associates-inc-v-hudson-co-fladistctapp-1974.