Legal Opinion

Abrahams v. Mimosa Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided April 20, 1965No. 65-90PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Per curiam

This matter comes on to be heard before’ the court on the appellees’ motion to dismiss this appeal for failure to supersede the order taxing costs against the appellant [the original plaintiff in the trial court].'

In determining this motion, we are required to examine the provisions of Rule 3.2, subd. f,1 Florida Appellate Rules, and Rule 5.5,2 Florida Appellate Rules, 31 F.S.A., in order to determine which of said, rules is applicable to an appealing plaintiff who is assigning error in the taxing of costs. In reaching our determination, the rules of court must be construed as statutes are…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Adams v. CulverSupreme Court of Florida · 1959
  2. Hoodless v. JerniganSupreme Court of Florida · 1903
  3. Florida Land Rock Phosphate Co. v. AndersonSupreme Court of Florida · 1905
  4. Woodley Lane, Inc. v. NolenDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1962
  5. Berg v. New York Life InsuranceSupreme Court of Florida · 1955

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Nolan v. EshlemanSupreme Court of Florida · 1966
  2. Cypress Bend Condo. I Ass'n v. DexnerDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1998
  3. Nolan v. EshlemanDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1965

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API