Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Horne v. Sales

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided March 15, 1985No. AX-43Published

1ConcurrenceWentworth, Judge

I agree with the majority that the motion to strike should be granted and that the merits of the motion for rehearing may not, accordingly, serve as the vehicle for case disposition at this point. However, in the interest of clarification of the principles on which I rested my original concurrence, 461 So.2d 244, 247 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), I feel obliged to recognize what appears to me to be merit in the petition for rehearing in urging logical inconsistency within both the majority and concurring opinions. My analysis should have led to some relief for appellant unless the circumstances here…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. City of Clermont v. RumphDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1984
  2. PHOTO ELECTRONICS CORPORATION/WPEC v. GlickDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1983
  3. Horne v. Alter SalesDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1984

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

Powered by the Exa API