Case Name: Jose BARED et al., Appellants, v. MIAMI PROFESSIONAL SPORTS, LTD., etc., et al., Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1977-11-29
Citations: 353 So. 2d 167
Docket Number: Nos. 77-1935 and 77-1936
Parties: Jose BARED et al., Appellants, v. MIAMI PROFESSIONAL SPORTS, LTD., etc., et al., Appellees.
Judges: Before PEARSON, HUBBART and KE-HOE, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 353
Pages: 167–168

Head Matter:
Jose BARED et al., Appellants, v. MIAMI PROFESSIONAL SPORTS, LTD., etc., et al., Appellees.
Nos. 77-1935 and 77-1936.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Nov. 29, 1977.
Rehearing Denied Jan. 4, 1978.
Heiman & Heiman and Norman J. Silber, Miami, for appellants.
Paul & Thomson and James W. Beasley, Jr. and Dennis J. Olle, Fowler, White, Burnett, Hurley, Banick & Knight and Henry Burnett, Robert M. Sondak, Miami, for ap-pellees.
Before PEARSON, HUBBART and KE-HOE, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
We are presented here with an interlocutory appeal and a full appeal from an order dissolving a limited partnership pursuant to Section 620, Florida Statutes (1975).
The burden of respondent-appellants' attack is that they had alleged certain defenses: (1) waiver of right to proceed for dissolution, (2) equitable estoppel of petitioners to proceed for dissolution, and (3) an implied agreement not to proceed for dissolution. It affirmatively appears from this record that the issues attempted to be raised are merely "paper issues." The un-controverted evidence in its entirety supports the trial judge's determination that there was nothing in the affidavits or depositions to support a genuine issue of material fact on any of the purported issues. We, therefore, affirm the summary final judgment upon the principles stated in Johnson v. Studstill, 71 So.2d 251 (Fla.1954); and Edgewater Drugs, Inc. v. Jax Drugs, Inc., 138 So.2d 525 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962)..
Affirmed.