Presley v. Clarkson Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Presley v. Clarkson Co.

498 So. 2d 571, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2471, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 9311

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 26, 1986

DocketNo. 84-2368

StatusPublished

This text of 498 So. 2d 571 (Presley v. Clarkson Co.) 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

Presley v. Clarkson Co., 498 So. 2d 571, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2471, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 9311 (Fla. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

We grant the appellee’s motion for rehearing and withdraw our opinion of August 13, 1986. Appellee has correctly noted that a procedural flaw to the trial court’s entry of final summary judgment was cured by a prior order of this court permitting entry of the summary judgment. Upon review on rehearing we have also reconsidered our decision on the merits. Previously we were concerned that the record in the trial court was not sufficiently clear to reflect appellant’s opportunity and participation in Canadian legal proceedings on the same issue now in dispute. Upon reflection we believe the trial court record demonstrates an unrebutted showing of appellant’s participation in Canadian legal proceedings resulting in an adverse and binding ruling against him on the same issue. Accordingly, we now affirm the final summary judgment of the trial court.

DOWNEY, ANSTEAD and DELL, JJ„ concur.

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

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

We grant the appellee’s motion for rehearing and withdraw our opinion of August 13, 1986. Appellee has correctly noted that a procedural flaw to the trial court’s entry of final summary judgment was cured by a prior order of this court permitting entry of the summary judgment. Upon review on rehearing we have also reconsidered our decision on the merits. Previously we were concerned that the record in the trial court was not sufficiently clear to reflect appellant’s opportunity and participation in Canadian legal proceedings on the same issue now in dispute. Upon reflection we believe the trial court record demonstrates an unrebutted showing of appellant’s participation in Canadian legal proceedings resulting in an adverse and binding ruling against him on the same issue. Accordingly, we now affirm the final summary judgment of the trial court.

DOWNEY, ANSTEAD and DELL, JJ„ concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

498 So. 2d 571, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2471, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 9311, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/presley-v-clarkson-co-fladistctapp-1986.