Oxford Consumer Discount Co. v. Adler
296 So. 2d 568, 1974 Fla. App. LEXIS 6991
Opinions
This is an appeal from an order denying appellant’s motion made pursuant to Rule 1.540(b), RCP 31 F.S.A., to vacate a judgment. The issue here is whether the trial court erred in holding that appellant’s motion did not show excusable neglect. We hold that the motion and accompanying affidavit were insufficient to show excusable neglect. See Austin Burke, Inc. v. Vigilant Insurance Co., Fla.App.1965, 179 So.2d 600.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Oxford Consumer Discount Co. v. Adler, 296 So. 2d 568, 1974 Fla. App. LEXIS 6991 (Fla. Ct. App. 1974).
296 So. 2d 568 (Oxford Consumer Discount Co. v. Adler) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Rashard v. Cappiali
171 So. 2d 581 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1965)
Austin Burke, Inc. v. Vigilant Insurance Co.
179 So. 2d 600 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1965)