welcome to elawyers.us
Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change
  1. Home
  2. Find a Lawyer
  6. Stephen D. Ake
Stephen D. Ake
Stephen D. Ake
Visitors: 152
0
Bar #14087(FL)     License for 31 years; Member in Good Standing
Tampa FL

Are you Stephen D. Ake? Claim this page now or Cliam yourself lawyer page

  Damico v. State  (1943)
Supreme Court of Florida Filed: Dec. 21, 1943 Citations: 153 Fla. 850, 16 So. 2d 43
Appellant was convicted of breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony, to wit: grand larceny. The first question we consider is whether there was error in denying an application for a commission to take the testimony of a nonresident witness to support a plea of alibi. The information was filed September 22, 1942. December 5th, following, a motion to quash was filed. December 8th, appellant was arraigned. The case was set for trial on January 12th and on January 5th the application for ..
  Damico v. State  (1943)
Supreme Court of Florida Filed: Dec. 21, 1943 Citations: 153 Fla. 850, 16 So. 2d 43
Appellant was convicted of breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony, to wit: grand larceny. The first question we consider is whether there was error in denying an application for a commission to take the testimony of a nonresident witness to support a plea of alibi. The information was filed September 22, 1942. December 5th, following, a motion to quash was filed. December 8th, appellant was arraigned. The case was set for trial on January 12th and on January 5th the application for ..
  Damico v. State  (1943)
Supreme Court of Florida Filed: Dec. 21, 1943 Citations: 153 Fla. 850, 16 So. 2d 43
Appellant was convicted of breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony, to wit: grand larceny. The first question we consider is whether there was error in denying an application for a commission to take the testimony of a nonresident witness to support a plea of alibi. The information was filed September 22, 1942. December 5th, following, a motion to quash was filed. December 8th, appellant was arraigned. The case was set for trial on January 12th and on January 5th the application for ..
  Damico v. State  (1943)
Supreme Court of Florida Filed: Dec. 21, 1943 Citations: 153 Fla. 850, 16 So. 2d 43
Appellant was convicted of breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony, to wit: grand larceny. The first question we consider is whether there was error in denying an application for a commission to take the testimony of a nonresident witness to support a plea of alibi. The information was filed September 22, 1942. December 5th, following, a motion to quash was filed. December 8th, appellant was arraigned. The case was set for trial on January 12th and on January 5th the application for ..
  State, Ex Rel. v. Sholtz  (1936)
Supreme Court of Florida Filed: Sep. 30, 1936 Citations: 125 Fla. 361, 169 So. 849
In 1927 the Legislature enacted a special Act, Chapter 13471, authorizing the issuance of $350,000.00 of bonds by Union County for the purpose of hardsurfacing certain State roads located in that county. The Act required the County Commissioners of the county to set aside a sum sufficient to pay the interest and provide a sinking fund to meet the principal of the bonds when due, "out of any moneys made payable by the laws of the State of Florida to said Union County, Florida, as part of the proce..
  Allison v. Handy Andy Community Stores  (1934)
Supreme Court of Florida Filed: Sep. 21, 1934 Citations: 116 Fla. 574, 156 So. 521
When this case was before this Court on the first appeal, we held that the court below was in error in overruling the demurrer to the bill of complaint and in refusing to dissolve the temporary injunction, for the reasons stated in the opinion, and the order of the lower court was merely reversed, without directions. Allison v. Handy-Andy Community Stores, Inc., 106 Fla. 274 , 143 So. 2d 263 . When the mandate of this Court went down, the chancellor made an appropriate order sustaining the demurr..
  Mahin v. Mahin  (1936)
Supreme Court of Florida Filed: Sep. 10, 1936 Citations: 127 Fla. 247, 169 So. 665
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING. The holding of the Court is that the controversy attempted to be presented by the amended bill of complaint is one of equitable cognizance and that the allegations of the bill of complaint involved are sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss. Such is the import of the opinion in McCamy v. Bayne, 94 Fla. 209 , 210, 113 Sou. *Page 248 Rep. 712 (receded from on rehearing on other points in 116 Sou. Rep. 267). This disposes also of the motion of appellant to transfer th..
  Sholtz v. State Ex Rel.  (1935)
Supreme Court of Florida Filed: Oct. 03, 1935 Citations: 121 Fla. 138, 163 So. 402
In this case an inspection of the record has been made and the judgment rendered found to square with the precedents set in earlier cases previously decided by this Court after eliminating from consideration some of the questions argued which we find were not properly raised in the court below so as to be availed of on this writ of error, if at all. It was no defense to a writ brought to subject applicable moneys already on hand to pay relator's demand, that relator has heretofore made no objecti..
  Sholtz v. State Ex Rel.  (1935)
Supreme Court of Florida Filed: Oct. 03, 1935 Citations: 121 Fla. 138, 163 So. 402
In this case an inspection of the record has been made and the judgment rendered found to square with the precedents set in earlier cases previously decided by this Court after eliminating from consideration some of the questions argued which we find were not properly raised in the court below so as to be availed of on this writ of error, if at all. It was no defense to a writ brought to subject applicable moneys already on hand to pay relator's demand, that relator has heretofore made no objecti..
  Ago  (1993)
Florida Attorney General Reports Filed: Feb. 04, 1993
Mr. Philip Perrey General Counsel West Coast Inland Navigation District Post Office Drawer 9480 Bradenton, Florida 34206 Dear Mr. Perrey: On behalf of the West Coast Inland Navigation District, you ask substantially the following question: Is the West Coast Inland Navigation District liable for increment tax increases pursuant to s. 163.340 , F.S. In sum, I am of the opinion: Inasmuch as the West Coast Inland Navigation District is a multi-county special district levying ad valorem taxes in more..

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer