Florida Gas v. Am. Employers' Ins. Co.

3 Citing cases

  1. Faircloth v. Mr. Boston Distiller Corp.

    245 So. 2d 240 (Fla. 1970)   Cited 19 times
    In Faircloth v. Mr. Boston Distiller Corp., 245 So.2d 240 (Fla. 1970), the Court upheld as against an equal protection attack, legislation which imposed excise taxes at different rates on manufacture of alcoholic beverages exclusively from raw materials produced in Florida as opposed to those manufactured in whole or in part from raw materials produced in other states.

    The action allowing such parties to appeal is highly questionable but in the present posture of the litigation โ€” the state itself having properly vested jurisdiction here by appeal โ€” both propositions are academic and merit no further comment. See Krouse v. Palmer, 131 Fla. 444, 179 So. 762 (1938); Florida Gas Co. v. American Employers' Insurance Co., 218 So.2d 197 (3d Dist.Ct.App.Fla. 1969); and United States v. State of Florida, 179 So.2d 890 (3d Dist.Ct.App.Fla. 1965). 39 Am. Jur. Parties ยง 61 (1942), and cases cited therein. The trial court held that subsection (5) of Chapter 70-225, Laws of Florida, was void because its title did not meet the requirements of Article III, Section 6, of the Constitution of Florida โ€” 1968 Revision.

  2. State Trust Realty, LLC v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co.

    207 So. 3d 923 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 4 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Krouse v. Palmer, 131 Fla. 444, 179 So. 762, 763 (1938) (emphasis added). See British Aviation Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Menut, 511 So.2d 425, 426โ€“27 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987) (citing rule 1.230 in holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the intervener's petition to stay entry of a final judgment which ensued after default had been entered against the original defendant); Fla. Gas Co. v. Am. Emp'rs' Ins. Co., 218 So.2d 197, 197โ€“98 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969) (citing rule 1.230 and Krouse in holding that the intervener could not challenge the propriety of the main proceedings or the sufficiency of the plaintiff's pleadings); see also Arsali v. Chase Home Fin., LLC, 79 So.3d 845, 847 n. 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (recognizing the validity of the supreme court's interpretation of rule 1.230 in Krouse ). Here, at the time State Trust moved to intervene in the foreclosure action, a clerk's default had already been entered against the original homeowner defendants for failing to file any responsive pleading or motion.

  3. British Aviation Ins. Co. v. Menut

    511 So. 2d 425 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)   Cited 4 times

    "The law is settled that an intervenor is bound by the record made at the time he intervenes and must take the suit as he finds it. He cannot contest the plaintiff's claim against the defendant, but is limited to an assertion of his right to the res. He cannot challenge sufficiency of the pleadings or the propriety of the procedure, nor can he move to dismiss or delay the cause without permission of the chancellor."Florida Gas Company v. American Employers' Insurance Company, 218 So.2d 197, 198 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969). While we have held that the trial court should have exercised its discretion in favor of allowing intervention of British Aviation, we do not find an abuse of discretion or error by the trial court when it denied British Aviation's petition to stay entry of the final judgment.