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

District Court of Appeal of Florida

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

299 So. 2d 53

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided August 30, 1974·No. No. 74-121·Published·Cited by 2 cases

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

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.

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

Pincite

299 So. 2d 53 (Mosby & Russell Engineering Associates, Inc. v. Hudson Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related