Rush v. Joyner

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Rush v. Joyner

540 So. 2d 266, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 837, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 1720

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 5, 1989

DocketNo. 88-0093

StatusPublished

This text of 540 So. 2d 266 (Rush v. Joyner) 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

Rush v. Joyner, 540 So. 2d 266, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 837, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 1720 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. We find no error in the trial court’s ruling as a matter of law that Florida law should apply to this action. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the choice-of-law issue and mutually contended that there were no material issues of fact, and that on the facts either Georgia law or Florida law should apply. At the hearing counsel for the appellant specifically advised the trial court that the only possible choice of law was Georgia or Florida. Upon review of the record we believe the trial court properly applied the test set out in Bishop v. Florida Specialty Paint Co., 389 So.2d 999 (Fla.1980) to the undisputed facts of this case in concluding that Florida law should apply. See also State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Olsen, 406 So.2d 1109 (Fla.1981).

ANSTEAD, GUNTHER and WARNER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. We find no error in the trial court’s ruling as a matter of law that Florida law should apply to this action. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the choice-of-law issue and mutually contended that there were no material issues of fact, and that on the facts either Georgia law or Florida law should apply. At the hearing counsel for the appellant specifically advised the trial court that the only possible choice of law was Georgia or Florida. Upon review of the record we believe the trial court properly applied the test set out in Bishop v. Florida Specialty Paint Co., 389 So.2d 999 (Fla.1980) to the undisputed facts of this case in concluding that Florida law should apply. See also State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Olsen, 406 So.2d 1109 (Fla.1981).

ANSTEAD, GUNTHER and WARNER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

540 So. 2d 266, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 837, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 1720, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rush-v-joyner-fladistctapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack