Roper v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co.

46 Fla. Supp. 22
CourtCircuit Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit of Florida, Miami-Dade County
DecidedMay 24, 1977
DocketNo. 76-34483
StatusPublished

This text of 46 Fla. Supp. 22 (Roper v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Circuit Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit of Florida, Miami-Dade County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Roper v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 46 Fla. Supp. 22 (Fla. Super. Ct. 1977).

Opinion

EDWARD D. COWART, Circuit Judge.

This cause having come before the court pursuant to defendant, Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company’s motion for summary judgment, and the court having heard argument of counsel and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, the following findings of fact are made —

1. This cause is controlled by McKinney v. Dade County, etc., et al., 341 So.2d 1061 (Fla. 3d Dist. 1977), which states at page 1062 — ” [wjhen a prosecuting attorney files an information against a defendant, he conclusively determines that the evidence is adequate to establish probable cause to put the defendant on trial. See: State ex rel. Hardy v. Blount, 261 So.2d 172 (Fla. 1972) and cases cited therein.”

2. The record, particularly the deposition of Charles Mayes, Assistant State Attorney, Eleventh Judicial Circuit, at page 62 et seq., demonstrates that Souhern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company presented certain materials to Assistant State Attorney Leonard Lewis, Mr. Lewis procured the issuance of a warrant, a preliminary hearing was had during which the judge held an evidentiary hearing and took testimony under oath, probable cause was found and pursuant thereto an information was filed by Assistant State Attorney Mayes.

Upon the foregoing finding of facts it is ordered and adjudged that —

1. Defendant, Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company’s motion for summary judgment is granted.

2. Plaintiff, Mack Roper, taking nothing by this action and the defendant, Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company, go hence without day and recover its costs from plaintiff in the sum to be later taxed.

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

Related

State Ex Rel. Hardy v. Blount
261 So. 2d 172 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1972)
McKinney v. Dade County
341 So. 2d 1061 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1977)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
46 Fla. Supp. 22, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roper-v-southern-bell-tel-tel-co-flacirct11mia-1977.