green
Positive treatment
3.6 score
Treatment trajectory · 1932 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1932
1979
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Atlantic Coast Line R. R. Co. v. Railroad Commission
See Florida Motor Lines, Inc., v. Railroad Commission, 101 Fla. 1018 , 132 Sou. 851 .” On the showing made it appears that there is substantial evidence in the record to support the findings of the Commission as hereinbefore set forth and, therefore, we may not substitute our conclusions in lieu of the findings of the Commission.
cited
Cited "see"
Florida Motor Lines Corporation v. Douglass
See Florida Motor Lines v. State Railroad Commission, 101 Fla. 1018 , 132 So. 851 .
cited
Cited "see"
Great Southern Trucking Co. v. Douglas
See Florida Motor Lines, Inc., v. Railroad Commission, 101 Fla. 1018 , 132 So. 851 .
cited
Cited "see"
Central Truck Lines, Inc. v. Railroad Commission
See Florida Motor Lines v. Railroad Commission, 101 Fla. 1018 , 132 Sou.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
In re Smith
Compare Florida Motor Lines v. Railroad Commission [of Florida], 101 Fla. 1018 , 132 So. 851 ; Nelson v. State ex rel.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Wilson v. McCoy Mfg. Co.
See also Florida Motor Lines, Inc., v. State Railroad Commission, 101 Fla. 1018 , 132 So. 851 ; Great Southern Trucking Co. v. Douglas, 147 Fla. 552 , 3 So.2d 526 .
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
City of Pensacola v. Maxwell
Compare Florida Motor Lines v. State Railroad Commission, 101 Fla. 1018 , 132 So. 851 ; Nelson v. State ex rel.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Miami Beach Amusement Company, and James Solomont, Appellants, vs. O’Neil-Orr Construction Company, a Corporation, and Melrose Properties, Inc., a Corporation, Appellees
Supreme Court of Florida.
Feb 27, 1931.
Worley Worley, for Appellants;
Loftin, Stokes Calkins, for Appellees.
Whitfield, Terrell, Buford.
Published
Per Curiam.
This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the Decree herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is.no error in the said Decree; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that the said Decree of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby affirmed.
Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.