Kramer v. Freedman
Louisiana Court of Appeal
1Per curiam
The petition for writ of certiorari reflected apparent jurisdiction in this Court. We issued the writ and have heard argument of the parties. Upon further consideration of the matter, we have determined that the cited decisions present no direct conflict as required by Article V, Section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution, F.S.A. Therefore, the writ must be and is hereby discharged.
It is so ordered.
CARLTON, C. J., AND ERVIN, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
2Cited by7 opinions
- Abreu v. AmaroDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1988
- Evelyn G. Dewitt and Mabel M. Dewitt v. Estelle R. Duce, Dallas W. Weaver and Mabel E. WeaverCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1979
- Shakarian v. DaumDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1990
- Freedman v. Horton, Schwartz & PerseDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1980
- Bergman v. SernsDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1990
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.