Pino v. Lopez
Cases that cite this one
19 later published cases cite this decision.
- Miller v. Perez (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)
- Jobear, Inc. v. Dewind Machinery Co. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)
- St. Mary's Hospital, Inc. v. Schocoff (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)
- CONSTRUCTION CONSULTING, INC. v. THE DISTRICT BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF BROWARD COLLEGE (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2022)
- Gonzalez v. Citizens Property Ins. Corp. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2019)
- Technical Packaging, Inc. v. Hanchett (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)
- Heitmeyer v. Sasser (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)
- De Arce v. Perez (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)
- Frechter v. K Mart Corp. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)
- W.C. Murphy Architect, P.A. v. W.P. Austin Construction Corp. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)
- Cove View Excavating & Construction Co. v. Flynn (Utah Ct. App. 1988)
- Mortell v. Keith (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)
- Jacksonville Electric Authority v. Draper's Egg & Poultry Co. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)
- Planes v. Planes (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)
- Howard v. Greer (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)
- Rudick v. Rudick (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)
- Yelen v. Cindy's Inc. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)
- Hannah v. James A. Ryder Corp. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)
- Falls Poultry Distributing Co. v. Canner (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1979)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
Daniel Lopez PINO, Appellant,
v.
Robert A. LOPEZ et al., Appellees.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
*193 Heller & Kaplan and Seymour Kaplan, Miami, for appellant.
Sinclair, Louis, Siegel & Heath and Bayard E. Heath, Miami, for appellees.
Before PEARSON, HUBBART and KEHOE, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
These appeals are from the same summary final judgment for the defendants. This issue involved was whether a check issued and cashed in "Full and final payment for all goods, services and claims to date" was an accord and satisfaction. Plaintiff's affidavit in opposition to the motion for summary judgment was insufficient as a matter of law because it alleged conclusions of law without supporting facts. Cf. Freeman v. Equilease Corporation, 346 So.2d 619 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); and Sherman v. Weintraub, 132 So.2d 421 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961). The defendant was entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. See MillerDunn Co. v. Green, 154 Fla. 72, 16 So.2d 637 (1944).
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.