Starkenstein v. City of Daytona Beach

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Starkenstein v. City of Daytona Beach

229 So. 2d 274, 1969 Fla. App. LEXIS 6470

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 16, 1969

DocketNo. L-337

StatusPublished

This text of 229 So. 2d 274 (Starkenstein v. City of Daytona 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

Starkenstein v. City of Daytona Beach, 229 So. 2d 274, 1969 Fla. App. LEXIS 6470 (Fla. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal questions the correctness of a summary final judgment rendered in favor of appellees.

The principal point argued in opposition to and support of the judgment appealed relates to whether the pleadings, depositions and other evidence in the file create a genuine issue of a material fact with respect to the absence of probable cause for the arrest of plaintiffs by the police officers employed by defendant city. The necessity of establishing the absence of probable cause as a predicate for recovery is admitted.¹ A careful examination of the record on appeal fails to disclose any evidence creating a genuine triable issue relative to the absence of probable cause.² Ap-pellees were entitled to judgment as a matter of law so the judgment appealed is affirmed.³

JOHNSON, C. J., and WIGGINTON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

This appeal questions the correctness of a summary final judgment rendered in favor of appellees.

The principal point argued in opposition to and support of the judgment appealed relates to whether the pleadings, depositions and other evidence in the file create a genuine issue of a material fact with respect to the absence of probable cause for the arrest of plaintiffs by the police officers employed by defendant city. The necessity of establishing the absence of probable cause as a predicate for recovery is admitted.¹ A careful examination of the record on appeal fails to disclose any evidence creating a genuine triable issue relative to the absence of probable cause.² Ap-pellees were entitled to judgment as a matter of law so the judgment appealed is affirmed.³

JOHNSON, C. J., and WIGGINTON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

229 So. 2d 274, 1969 Fla. App. LEXIS 6470, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/starkenstein-v-city-of-daytona-beach-fladistctapp-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack