Sanchez v. Crandon Wholesale Drug Co.

173 So. 2d 687
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedApril 7, 1965
Docket33846
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 173 So. 2d 687 (Sanchez v. Crandon Wholesale Drug Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Sanchez v. Crandon Wholesale Drug Co., 173 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 1965).

Opinion

173 So.2d 687 (1965)

Antonio U. SANCHEZ and Jose Manuel Berenguer, Petitioners,
v.
CRANDON WHOLESALE DRUG CO., a Florida corporation, Respondent.

No. 33846.

Supreme Court of Florida.

April 7, 1965.

Nestor Morales, Miami, for petitioners.

Charles H. Spooner, Coral Gables, for respondent.

ROBERTS, Justice.

On conflict certiorari granted we here review a decision of the District Court of Appeal, Third District, affirming an order of the trial court dismissing a complaint in a claim for damages growing out of an alleged breach of an oral contract. The historical background, nature of the controversy, and questions of law presented and decided appear in the opinion of the District Court in Sanchez v. Crandon Wholesale Drug Co., 167 So.2d 640, and it would serve no useful purpose to repeat them here. The decision of the District Court was divided with a dissenting opinion by Judge Charles A. Carroll. This court has jurisdiction under Section 4(2), Article V, Constitution of Florida, F.S.A., because of a direct conflict on the same point of law with Florida-Georgia Chemical Co., Inc. v. National Laboratories, Inc., 153 So.2d 752, decided by the District Court of Appeal, First District.

Argument having been heard and upon further consideration of the record and briefs, it is our view that the case is controlled by the correct rule of decision announced in Florida-Georgia Chemical Co., Inc. v. National Laboratories, Inc., supra, by the District Court of Appeal, First District, and which we adopt as our view.

Accordingly, the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Third District, in this case is quashed with instructions that the cause be returned to the trial court with *688 directions to reinstate the complaint and proceed further in a manner not inconsistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

DREW, C.J., and THOMAS, CALDWELL and ERVIN, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Berger v. Philip Morris USA, Inc.
101 F. Supp. 3d 1228 (M.D. Florida, 2015)
Di Gennaro v. Rubbermaid, Inc.
214 F. Supp. 2d 1354 (S.D. Florida, 2002)
Ponce Development Co. v. Espino
449 So. 2d 317 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1984)
City of South Miami v. Dembinsky
423 So. 2d 988 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1982)
RW Roberts Const. Co., Inc. v. ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT
423 So. 2d 630 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1982)
Wright & Seaton, Inc. v. Prescott
420 So. 2d 623 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1982)
Burger Chef Systems, Inc. v. Burger Chef of Florida, Inc.
317 So. 2d 795 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1975)
Ventanas Del Caribe, S.A. v. Stanley Works
256 A.2d 228 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1969)
Sher v. Shower Door Company of America, Ltd.
197 So. 2d 333 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1967)
Sanchez v. Crandon Wholesale Drug Co.
174 So. 2d 780 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1965)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
173 So. 2d 687, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sanchez-v-crandon-wholesale-drug-co-fla-1965.