Legal Opinion

Hanna v. Martin

Supreme Court of Florida

Decided November 30, 1948PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

CHAPMAN, J.:

The plaintiffs and defendants to this suit own adjacent lots situated on the waters of Biscayne Bay. The defendants-appellants’ property is situated north of the plaintiffs-appellees’ property and a five foot easement separates the lots, as the parcels are located in different subdivisions. The appellants extended their lot eastward into Biscayne Bay by filling in some 200 feet but failed to bulkhead the fill on the south boundary line, which is the north boundary line of appellees property. The effect of the fill, in the absence of a bulkhead on the dividing line of the two…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Thiesen v. Gulf, Florida & Alabama Railway Co.Supreme Court of Florida · 1917
  2. Holland v. Fort Pierce Financing & Construction Co.Supreme Court of Florida · 1946
  3. Freed Freed v. Miami Beach Pier CorporationSupreme Court of Florida · 1927

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Amend. to Fla. Rules of Appellate Proc.Supreme Court of Florida · 1996
  2. The Aetna Casualty and Surety Company v. F. H. Hanna and Margaret Hanna, His WifeCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1955
  3. Amend. to Fla. Rules of Appellate Proc.Supreme Court of Florida · 1996
  4. Amend. to Fla. Rules of Appellate Proc.Supreme Court of Florida · 2000
  5. Duval Engineering and Contracting Co. v. SalesSupreme Court of Florida · 1954

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

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

Powered by the Exa API