E.I. Du Pont De Nemours and Co. v. Aquamar S.A. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours and Co. v. Aquamar S.A.

E.I. Du Pont De Nemours and Co. v. Aquamar S.A‪.‬

881 SO.2D 1, 2004.FL.0001380 , 29 FLA. L. WEEKLY D811

    • 4,00 kr
    • 4,00 kr

Publisher Description

Michael Snapp Bonding Agency, Inc. (Snapp) appeals from the circuit courts denial of its motion to set aside a forfeiture judgment entered by the Clerk of Court in Orange County, Florida. At the hearing on the motion below, the state attorney representing Orange County stipulated that all of the conditions set forth in section 903.26(5) and (8) had occurred. However, he asserted that because paper work (a receipt or letter, etc.) had not been placed in the file acknowledging costs of transportation were paid by Snapp, the Clerk of Court acted properly in failing to discharge the bond, and in entering a forfeiture judgment against Snapp. We reverse.

GENRE
Professional & Technical
RELEASED
2004
31 March
LANGUAGE
EN
English
LENGTH
13
Pages
PUBLISHER
LawApp Publishers
SIZE
76
KB

More Books by In the District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida Fourth District January Term 2004

Pompano Motor Company v. Chrysler Insurance Co. Pompano Motor Company v. Chrysler Insurance Co.
2004
Shingles v. State Shingles v. State
2004
Hughes v. Schatzberg Hughes v. Schatzberg
2004
Montalbano v. Unemployment Appeals Commission Montalbano v. Unemployment Appeals Commission
2004
Carestio v. School Board of Broward County Carestio v. School Board of Broward County
2004
Peterson v. State Peterson v. State
2004