Legal Opinion

Coult v. McIntosh Investment Co.

Supreme Court of Florida

Decided January 15, 1937PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Per curiam

The defendant in error includes in its brief motion to dismiss this case because the plaintiffs in error have failed to comply with amended Rule 20 adopted November 5th, 1930, in the preparation and presentation of their brief. The brief of plaintiffs in error has failed to comply with Rule 20 in that, (1) the Plaintiffs in Error did not “begin the brief with a concise statement in the briefest and most general terms of the controlling question or questions involved, stated in the form of a question for decision, each such question being so phrased that the point of law intended for solution…

2Cited by1 opinion

  1. Urban v. City of Daytona BeachDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1958

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

Powered by the Exa API