Legal Opinion
City of Melbourne v. Puma
Supreme Court of Florida
Decided February 3, 1994No. 81652PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
630 So.2d 1097 (1994)
CITY OF MELBOURNE, Petitioner,
v.
Joseph Albert PUMA, Respondent.
No. 81652.
Supreme Court of Florida.
February 3, 1994.
Paul R. Gougelman and Michael R. Riemenschneider of Reinman, Harrell, Graham, Mitchell & Wattwood, P.A., Melbourne, for petitioner.
Ralph Geilich, Melbourne, for respondent.
Sherry A. Spiers, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and Jonathan A. Glogau, Asst. Atty. Gen., Dept. of Legal Affairs, Tallahassee, amicus curiae for Florida Dept. of Community Affairs and Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., State of Fla.
Nancy Stuparich, Asst. Gen. Counsel and Jane C. Hayman, Deputy Gen.…
Also in this document: Per curiam.
2Cases cited2 opinions
- BD. OF CTY. COM'RS OF BREVARD v. SnyderSupreme Court of Florida · 1993
- City of Melbourne v. PumaDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1993
3Cited by5 opinions
- Martin County v. YusemSupreme Court of Florida · 1997
- Martin County v. YusemDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1995
- City of Melbourne v. PumaDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1994
- Ago, Florida Attorney General Reports1999
- Ago, Florida Attorney General Reports1995