Case ID: fla_152/html/0837-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

VIOLET VAN NATTA IDE, a widow, v. CITY OF ST. CLOUD, FLORIDA, a municipal corporation.
    13 So. (2nd) 448
    January Term, 1943
    April 30, 1943
    En Banc
    Rehearing Denied June 4, 1943
    
      G. P. Garrett and Lawrence Rogers, for appellant.
    O. S. Thacker and Jay J. Johnston, for appellee.
   PER CURIAM:

This is the second appearance here of this case. See Ide v. City of St. Cloud, 150 Fla. 806, 8 So. (2nd) 924. After a careful consideration of the record and the arguments and briefs of counsel, our conclusion is that the trial court correctly construed the meaning and effect of our former opinion and mandate in this case and properly applied the same in all of its rulings now brought’before us for review. As the record discloses no error, the judgment is hereby

Affirmed.

BUFORD, C. J., TERRELL, BROWN, CHAPMAN and ADAMS, JJ., concur.

SEBRING, J., agrees and concurs in the conclusion.

THOMAS, J., agrees to conclusion only.