Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

IRMA KAUFMAN AND HER HUSBAND, HARRY KAUFMAN, PETITIONERS, v. SWEET ET AL., CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, RESPONDENT. IRMA KAUFMAN AND HER HUSBAND, HARRY KAUFMAN, PETITIONERS-CROSS-RESPONDENTS,

PER CURIAM.

On the petition of Kaufman and the cross petition of Sweet, we granted certiorari to review the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Third District, because of an apparent conflict with prior decisions of this Court. After oral argument on jurisdiction and merits, and upon further consideration of the record and briefs, we have concluded that the writ was improvidently issued for the reason that a jurisdictional conflict of decisions is not present.

The writ of certiorari heretofore issued is hereby discharged. See Nielsen v. City of Sarasota, Fla.App., 117 So.2d 731, discussion under headnote 6, Page 734.

It is so ordered.

DREW, C.J., ROBERTS, THORNAL and O'CONNELL, JJ., and JONES Circuit Judge, concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

KAUFMAN v. SWEET ET AL., CORPORATION
(Oct 29, 1963)