From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Murray v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Aug 4, 2010
41 So. 3d 912 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

Summary

In Barry v. Murray, 131 Wn. 670, 231 P. 10, it was determined that, in the absence of evidence of negligence in the floatage of logs in a river, the riparian owner could not recover for damages occasioned through the existence of log jams, recognizing the rule, as originally announced in Mitchell v. Lea Lumber Co., supra, and reviewing the subsequent decisions of this court on the subject.

Summary of this case from Drainage District No. 6 v. Snohomish River Boom Co.

Opinion

No. 4D09-3159.

August 4, 2010.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Bernard I. Bober, Judge; L.T. Case No. 08-15946CF10A.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Ellen Griffin, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Helene C. Hvizd, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.


Affirmed.

STEVENSON, TAYLOR and MAY, JJ., concur.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.


Summaries of

Murray v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Aug 4, 2010
41 So. 3d 912 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

In Barry v. Murray, 131 Wn. 670, 231 P. 10, it was determined that, in the absence of evidence of negligence in the floatage of logs in a river, the riparian owner could not recover for damages occasioned through the existence of log jams, recognizing the rule, as originally announced in Mitchell v. Lea Lumber Co., supra, and reviewing the subsequent decisions of this court on the subject.

Summary of this case from Drainage District No. 6 v. Snohomish River Boom Co.
Case details for

Murray v. State

Case Details

Full title:BARRY v. MURRAY, Appellant, v. STATE OF FL, Appellee

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District

Date published: Aug 4, 2010

Citations

41 So. 3d 912 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

Citing Cases

Stidell v. Davidson

The rule applies here, we try the case de novo. In a number of cases, including the recent ones of Swift v.…

Drainage District No. 6 v. Snohomish River Boom Co.

In Gilson v. Cascade Lumber Co., 54 Wn. 289, 103 P. 11, this same doctrine was announced, and damages were…