Pierson v. City of Vero Beach

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Pierson v. City of Vero Beach

372 So. 2d 517, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 20920

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 27, 1979

DocketNo. 78-283

StatusPublished

This text of 372 So. 2d 517 (Pierson v. City of Vero Beach) 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

Pierson v. City of Vero Beach, 372 So. 2d 517, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 20920 (Fla. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a civil action. Plaintiff appeared in the trial court and before this Court pro se. We consider this as an appeal from the final order of dismissal with prejudice entered after plaintiff presented evidence at a non-jury trial. Essentially, plaintiff alleged but did not prove that the City of Vero Beach overcharged for water and sewer services to a trailer park owned by plaintiff. We find that the plaintiff/appellant has failed to demonstrate reversible error in regard to the dismissal, taxation of costs and the trial court’s ruling on post trial motions. See Contractors & Builders Association v. City of Dunedin, 329 So.2d 314 (Fla.1976), and Cooksey v. Utilities Commission, 261 So.2d 129 (Fla.1972). The dismissal and orders below are, therefore, affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

DOWNEY, C. J., and DAUKSCH and BERANEK, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a civil action. Plaintiff appeared in the trial court and before this Court pro se. We consider this as an appeal from the final order of dismissal with prejudice entered after plaintiff presented evidence at a non-jury trial. Essentially, plaintiff alleged but did not prove that the City of Vero Beach overcharged for water and sewer services to a trailer park owned by plaintiff. We find that the plaintiff/appellant has failed to demonstrate reversible error in regard to the dismissal, taxation of costs and the trial court’s ruling on post trial motions. See Contractors & Builders Association v. City of Dunedin, 329 So.2d 314 (Fla.1976), and Cooksey v. Utilities Commission, 261 So.2d 129 (Fla.1972). The dismissal and orders below are, therefore, affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

DOWNEY, C. J., and DAUKSCH and BERANEK, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

372 So. 2d 517, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 20920, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pierson-v-city-of-vero-beach-fladistctapp-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack