Pace Pontiac, Inc. v. Milby

Supreme Court of Florida

Pace Pontiac, Inc. v. Milby

185 So. 2d 467, 1966 Fla. LEXIS 3637

Supreme Court of Florida·Decided April 6, 1966·No. No. 34543·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The Petition for Writ of Certiorari reflected probable jurisdiction in this Court. We issued the Writ and have heard argument of the parties. After argument and upon further consideration of the matter, we have determined that the jurisdictional conflict as required by Article V, Section 4, Florida Constitution, F.S.A., does not ap[468] pear. Therefore, the Writ must he and is hereby discharged and the Petition for Writ of Certiorari is dismissed.

It is so ordered.

THORNAL, C. J., and THOMAS, ROBERTS, O’CONNELL, CALDWELL, ERVIN and BARNS (Retired), JJ., concur.

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. We issued the Writ and have heard argument of the parties. After argument and upon further consideration of the matter, we have determined that the jurisdictional conflict as required by Article V, Section 4, Florida Constitution, F.S.A., does not ap[468] pear. Therefore, the Writ must he and is hereby discharged and the Petition for Writ of Certiorari is dismissed.

It is so ordered.

THORNAL, C. J., and THOMAS, ROBERTS, O’CONNELL, CALDWELL, ERVIN and BARNS (Retired), JJ., concur.

Pace Pontiac, Inc. v. Milby, 185 So. 2d 467, 1966 Fla. LEXIS 3637 (Fla. 1966).

Pincite

185 So. 2d 467 (Pace Pontiac, Inc. v. Milby) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related