Murphy v. Hoenigmann

Florida District Courts of Appeal
Murphy v. Hoenigmann, 525 So. 2d 1009 (1988)
1988 WL 53050
Baskin, Nesbitt, Pearson

Murphy v. Hoenigmann

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

Finding that the trial court’s decision is supported by substantial, competent evidence, we affirm the Final Judgment. See Brown v. Taylor, 500 So.2d 309 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Brown v. Vining, 334 So.2d 647 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); In re Estate of Agardy v. Dunn, 293 So.2d 145 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); McDonough v. Rudisill, 229 So.2d 268 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969), cert. denied, 237 So.2d 532 (Fla. 1970); Carberry v. Foley, 213 So.2d 635 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968), cert. denied, 222 So.2d 750 (Fla. 1969).

Affirmed.

Reference

Full Case Name
Joseph H. MURPHY, Jr., as Personal Representative of the Estate of Lucille K. Newkirk v. John HOENIGMANN
Cited By
1 case
Status
Published