Petchem, Inc. v. Canaveral Port Authority

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Petchem, Inc. v. Canaveral Port Authority

483 So. 2d 527, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 489, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 6549

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 20, 1986

DocketNo. 85-1025

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 483 So. 2d 527 (Petchem, Inc. v. Canaveral Port Authority) 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

Petchem, Inc. v. Canaveral Port Authority, 483 So. 2d 527, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 489, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 6549 (Fla. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

DAUKSCH, Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment in a case which sought circuit court review of a decision of the Canaveral Port Authority which denied appellant’s request to operate a tugboat service within an area under the jurisdiction of the Canaveral Port Authority.

Upon careful consideration of the brief we cannot discern any particular alleged error on the part of the trial court, but that the court, appellant says, should have denied appellees’ motions for partial summary judgment and should have granted that of appellant. We cannot provide relief unless a clearly discernible, adequately stated and appropriately supported basis is set out. The trial court’s determination that the Canaveral Port Authority had the power to grant, and, implicitly, to deny, non-exclusive franchises based on the standard of necessity and convenience is established in the record. Because this court is not to substitute its judgment for that of the trial court and because no error has been demonstrated, the judgment is

AFFIRMED.

UPCHURCH and SHARP, JJ., concur.

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

DAUKSCH, Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment in a case which sought circuit court review of a decision of the Canaveral Port Authority which denied appellant’s request to operate a tugboat service within an area under the jurisdiction of the Canaveral Port Authority.

Upon careful consideration of the brief we cannot discern any particular alleged error on the part of the trial court, but that the court, appellant says, should have denied appellees’ motions for partial summary judgment and should have granted that of appellant. We cannot provide relief unless a clearly discernible, adequately stated and appropriately supported basis is set out. The trial court’s determination that the Canaveral Port Authority had the power to grant, and, implicitly, to deny, non-exclusive franchises based on the standard of necessity and convenience is established in the record. Because this court is not to substitute its judgment for that of the trial court and because no error has been demonstrated, the judgment is

AFFIRMED.

UPCHURCH and SHARP, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

483 So. 2d 527, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 489, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 6549, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/petchem-inc-v-canaveral-port-authority-fladistctapp-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack