Willis v. Dicieco

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Willis v. Dicieco

502 So. 2d 101, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 559, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 6804

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 18, 1987

DocketNo. 4-86-1090

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 502 So. 2d 101 (Willis v. Dicieco) 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

Willis v. Dicieco, 502 So. 2d 101, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 559, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 6804 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This cause is before the court on an appeal from a final judgment finding that some wild peafowl, either temporarily or permanently residing on appellants’ land, constitute a nuisance. This finding is supported by ample competent evidence and should be, and is, affirmed.

The only other issue before the court is the method of capture and place of relocation of these peafowl. The final judgment under review does not make clear how this is to be accomplished. We remand for an evidentiary hearing for the trial judge to make this determination so as to accomplish the same with the greatest safety to both the peafowl and the appellant landowners.

ANSTEAD and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., and KLEIN, HERBERT M., Associate Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

This cause is before the court on an appeal from a final judgment finding that some wild peafowl, either temporarily or permanently residing on appellants’ land, constitute a nuisance. This finding is supported by ample competent evidence and should be, and is, affirmed.

The only other issue before the court is the method of capture and place of relocation of these peafowl. The final judgment under review does not make clear how this is to be accomplished. We remand for an evidentiary hearing for the trial judge to make this determination so as to accomplish the same with the greatest safety to both the peafowl and the appellant landowners.

ANSTEAD and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., and KLEIN, HERBERT M., Associate Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

502 So. 2d 101, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 559, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 6804, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/willis-v-dicieco-fladistctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack