Van Arsdale v. DiMil Land Co.
District Court of Appeal of Florida
1Per curiam
Each side moved for summary judgment and, at least tacitly, agreed that the case was a ripe and proper one for adjudication and disposition under Rule 1.510, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, 31 F.S.A.1
Summary judgment was duly entered for plaintiff in a suit for specific performance of a land trade agreement. We reverse and remand because there are material disputed issues and critical unplumbed areas. Holl v. Talcott, Fla.1966, 191 So.2d 40.
This suit deals with the interpretation to be given a real estate trade agreement and, more specifically, the provision “ * * * titles to be insurable…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Holl v. TalcottSupreme Court of Florida · 1966
- Booth v. Mary Carter Paint CompanyDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1966
- Shollenberger v. BaskinDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1969
3Cited by5 opinions
- Osceola County v. GoodmanDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1973
- Clark v. MunroeDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1981
- Hobby v. ScottDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1974
- City of Orlando v. AshlockDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1977
- Therapeutic Technologies, Inc. v. AsensioDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1987