Rankin v. State
District Court of Appeal of Florida
1Per curiam
Affirmed under authority of Murray v. State, Fla.App.1965, 172 So.2d 487; Smith v. State, Fla.App.1965, 175 So.2d 243; Carey v. State, Fla.App.1965, 176 So.2d 603; Cole v. State. Fla.App.1966, 181 So.2d 698; Brown v. State, Fla.App.1964, 164 So.2d 34; Smith v. State, Fla.App.1965, 180 So.2d 675; Johnson v. State, Fla.App.1966, 181 So.2d 667, and Ogilvie v. State, Fla.App.1966, 181 So.2d 710.
We find that oral argument would serve no useful purpose and it is therefore dispensed with pursuant to Florida Appellate Rule 3.10, subd. e, 31 F.S.A.
ALLEN, C. J., and LILES and PIERCE, JJ-, concur.
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Smith v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1965
- Cole v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1966
- Johnson v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1966
- Carey v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1965
- Ogilvie v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1966
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Barfield v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad CompanyDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1967