Sanchez v. Crandon Wholesale Drug Co.
Cases that cite this one
13 later published cases cite this decision.
- Berger v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. (United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida 2015)
- Di Gennaro v. Rubbermaid, Inc. (United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida 2002)
- Ponce Development Co. v. Espino (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)
- RW Roberts Const. Co., Inc. v. ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)
- City of South Miami v. Dembinsky (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)
- Wright & Seaton, Inc. v. Prescott (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)
- R.W. Roberts Construction Co. v. St. Johns River Water Management District ex rel. McDonald Electric & Repair Service, Inc. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)
- Burger Chef Systems, Inc. v. Burger Chef of Florida, Inc. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1975)
- Ventanas Del Caribe, S.A. v. Stanley Works (Conn. 1969)
- Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company v. Florida East Coast Railway Company (5th Cir. 1968)
- Sher v. Shower Door Company of America, Ltd. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1967)
- Sanchez v. Crandon Wholesale Drug Co. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1967)
- Sanchez v. Crandon Wholesale Drug Co. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1965)
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
Antonio U. SANCHEZ and Jose Manuel Berenguer, Petitioners,
v.
CRANDON WHOLESALE DRUG CO., a Florida corporation, Respondent.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Nestor Morales, Miami, for petitioners.
Charles H. Spooner, Coral Gables, for respondent.
ROBERTS, Justice.
On conflict certiorari granted we here review a decision of the District Court of Appeal, Third District, affirming an order of the trial court dismissing a complaint in a claim for damages growing out of an alleged breach of an oral contract. The historical background, nature of the controversy, and questions of law presented and decided appear in the opinion of the District Court in Sanchez v. Crandon Wholesale Drug Co., 167 So.2d 640, and it would serve no useful purpose to repeat them here. The decision of the District Court was divided with a dissenting opinion by Judge Charles A. Carroll. This court has jurisdiction under Section 4(2), Article V, Constitution of Florida, F.S.A., because of a direct conflict on the same point of law with Florida-Georgia Chemical Co., Inc. v. National Laboratories, Inc., 153 So.2d 752, decided by the District Court of Appeal, First District.
Argument having been heard and upon further consideration of the record and briefs, it is our view that the case is controlled by the correct rule of decision announced in Florida-Georgia Chemical Co., Inc. v. National Laboratories, Inc., supra, by the District Court of Appeal, First District, and which we adopt as our view.
Accordingly, the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Third District, in this case is quashed with instructions that the cause be returned to the trial court with *688 directions to reinstate the complaint and proceed further in a manner not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
DREW, C.J., and THOMAS, CALDWELL and ERVIN, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.