Opinion · Florida Court Opinions

CAROL CITY UTILITIES, INC. v. DADE COUNTY, 152 So.2d 462 (Fla. 1963)

CAROL CITY UTILITIES, INC., A Fla. Corp., PETITIONER, v. DADECOUNTY, A Pol. SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF Fla., ET AL., & THEBOARD OF Pub. INSTRUCTION OF DADE COUNTY, Fla., RESPONDENTS., 152 So. 2d 462 (Fla. 1963)

Type
Opinion
Court
Florida Court Opinions
Jurisdiction
Florida
Date
1963-04-24
Topic
general

CAROL CITY UTILITIES, INC. v. DADE COUNTY, 152 So.2d 462 (Fla. 1963) CAROL CITY UTILITIES, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, PETITIONER, v. DADECOUNTY, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, ET AL., AND THEBOARD OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION OF DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, RESPONDENTS. No. 32081.Supreme Court of Florida. April 24, 1963.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed CAROL CITY UTILITIES, INC. v. DADE COUNTY, 152 So.2d 462 (Fla. 1963). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

CAROL CITY UTILITIES, INC. v. DADE COUNTY,152 So.2d 462(Fla. 1963)
CAROL CITY UTILITIES, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, PETITIONER, v. DADE
COUNTY, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, ET AL., AND THE
BOARD OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION OF DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, RESPONDENTS.
No. 32081.
Supreme Court of Florida.
April 24, 1963.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Dade County, Phillip Goldman, J.
Walton, Lantaff, Schroeder, Atkins, Carson Wahl and James Knight, Miami, for petitioner.

Darrey A. Davis, County Atty., and Thomas C. Britton, Asst. County Atty., for respondents Dade County and others.

Bolles Prunty, Miami, for respondent Bd. of Public Instruction of Dade County.
PER CURIAM.
We issued a writ of certiorari on the basis of a petition therefor which made a prima facie showing of jurisdiction. After consideration of briefs and oral arguments, we have concluded that the writ was improvidently issued. We have concluded that there is no jurisdictional conflict between the decision of the District Court of Appeal,143 So.2d 828, and the prior decision of this Court in City of Miami Beach v. Perell, Fla.,52 So.2d 906. See also Frix v. Beck, Fla.App.,104 So.2d 81; Bloomfield v. Mayo, Fla.App.,119 So.2d 417; Teston v. City of Tampa, Fla.,143 So.2d 473. Accordingly the writ is discharged.

It is so ordered.

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