Case ID: so2d_89/html/0649-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM. PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

DADE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, v. Mae Frances HOUK et al., Appellees.
    Supreme Court of Florida. Special Division A.
    May 23, 1956.
    On Rehearing en Banc Sept. 14, 1956.
    Francis G. Rearick and Hudson, McNutt, Campbell, Isom & Rearick, Miami, and Ross H. Stanton, Jr., Tallahassee, for appellant.
    Jepeway & Dauber, Walter J. Migoski, Brigham, Black, Niles & Wright and Leon D. Black, Jr., Evans, Mershon, Sawyer, Johnston & Simmons, Miami, for appellees.
   PER CURIAM.

This cause came on to be heard on the motion of appellees to affirm the judgment appealed from pursuant tó 31 F.S.A. Rule 38 of the rules of this court and it appearing to the court from an examination of the record that said motion is appropriate and seasonably made and that it is manifest that the questions raised on appeal are without substantial merit and need no further argument ;

It is accordingly Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed that the motion to affirm the judgment appealed from be, and the same is, hereby granted, and the judgment is

Affirmed.

DREW, C. J., and TERRELL, THOMAS and THORNAL, JJ., concur.

On Rehearing Granted

PER CURIAM.

On rehearing granted and after oral argu-. ment before the Court en banc, it is Ordered that the per curiam opinion and judgment of this Court affirming the judgment of the Circuit Court of Dade County appealed, from, be and the same is hereby adhered to on the authority of Dade County v. Brigham, Fla., 47 So.2d 602, 18 A.L.R.2d 1221, which case is hereby, in all respects approved and confirmed.

DREW, C. J., and TERRELL, THOMAS, HOBSON, ROBERTS, THORNAL and O’CONNELL, JJ., concur.