Paez v. Susquehanna Broadcasting Corp.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Paez v. Susquehanna Broadcasting Corp.

473 So. 2d 298, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1923, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 17479

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 6, 1985

DocketNo. 84-2657

StatusPublished

This text of 473 So. 2d 298 (Paez v. Susquehanna Broadcasting Corp.) 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

Paez v. Susquehanna Broadcasting Corp., 473 So. 2d 298, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1923, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 17479 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the summary judgment entered by the trial court upon a holding that no genuine issue exists as to any material fact. Whitten v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Co., 410 So.2d 501 (Fla.1982); Johnson v. Gulf Life Insurance Co., 429 So.2d 744 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Proprietors Insurance Co. v. Siegel, 410 So.2d 993 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). Appellant’s failure to comply with contest terms set forth by appellee precludes recovery. See Endres v. Buffalo Automobile Dealers Assoc., 29 Misc.2d 756, 217 N.Y.S.2d 460 (Sup.Ct.1961); Bowlerama of Texas, Inc. v. Miyakawa, 449 S.W.2d 357 (Tex.Civ.App.1969); see also Webster Lumber Co. v. Lincoln, 94 Fla. 1097, 115 So. 498 (1927); Strong & Trowbridge Co. v. H. Baars & Co., 60 Fla. 630, 54 So. 92 (1910); Sullivan v. Economic [299]*299Research Properties, 455 So.2d 630 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Restatement (Second) of Contracts, §§ 58, 60 (1979).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the summary judgment entered by the trial court upon a holding that no genuine issue exists as to any material fact. Whitten v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Co., 410 So.2d 501 (Fla.1982); Johnson v. Gulf Life Insurance Co., 429 So.2d 744 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Proprietors Insurance Co. v. Siegel, 410 So.2d 993 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). Appellant’s failure to comply with contest terms set forth by appellee precludes recovery. See Endres v. Buffalo Automobile Dealers Assoc., 29 Misc.2d 756, 217 N.Y.S.2d 460 (Sup.Ct.1961); Bowlerama of Texas, Inc. v. Miyakawa, 449 S.W.2d 357 (Tex.Civ.App.1969); see also Webster Lumber Co. v. Lincoln, 94 Fla. 1097, 115 So. 498 (1927); Strong & Trowbridge Co. v. H. Baars & Co., 60 Fla. 630, 54 So. 92 (1910); Sullivan v. Economic [299]*299Research Properties, 455 So.2d 630 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Restatement (Second) of Contracts, §§ 58, 60 (1979).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

473 So. 2d 298, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1923, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 17479, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/paez-v-susquehanna-broadcasting-corp-fladistctapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack