Nuno v. Balz

Supreme Court of Florida

Nuno v. Balz

265 So. 2d 10, 1972 Fla. LEXIS 3484

Supreme Court of Florida·Decided June 28, 1972·No. No. 41887·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of certiorari reflected probable jurisdiction in this Court. [11]*11We issued the writ and have heard oral argument of the parties. After argument and upon further consideration of the matter, we have determined that the writ was improvidently issued. Therefore, the writ is hereby discharged and the petition for writ of certiorari is dismissed.

It is so ordered.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON and ADKINS, JJ., concur. BOYD, J., dissents.

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

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of certiorari reflected probable jurisdiction in this Court. [11]*11We issued the writ and have heard oral argument of the parties. After argument and upon further consideration of the matter, we have determined that the writ was improvidently issued. Therefore, the writ is hereby discharged and the petition for writ of certiorari is dismissed.

It is so ordered.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON and ADKINS, JJ., concur. BOYD, J., dissents.

Nuno v. Balz, 265 So. 2d 10, 1972 Fla. LEXIS 3484 (Fla. 1972).

Pincite

265 So. 2d 10 (Nuno v. Balz) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related