ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY
v.
WILLIAM O. KICKLITER, ET AL.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed an interlocutory decree that temporarily enjoined the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company from constructing a railway on certain city streets. The court denied review of a cross-appeal regarding adverse possession by another company, deferring that issue until the case reaches the merits.
The court affirmed the interlocutory decree granting the temporary injunction against the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company. The court denied review of the cross-appeal concerning adverse possession, deferring judgment on that issue.
“This is an appeal by certiorari from an interlocutory decree restraining petitioner from locating, constructing or operating a line of railways on and over that portion of Thirtieth Street lying between Osborne Avenue and Chelsea Street and that portion of Chelsea Street lying between Thirtieth Street and the vitus branch of the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad in Tampa, Florida.”
Describes the subject matter of the appeal and the lower court's ruling.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company sought to locate, construct, and operate a railway on specific portions of Thirtieth Street and Chelsea Stree…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Interlocutory Decree cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal by certiorari from an interlocutory decree restraining petitioner from locating, constructing or operating a line of railways on and over that portion of Thirtieth Street lying between Osborne Avenue and Chelsea Street and that portion of Chelsea Street lying between Thirtieth Street and the vitus branch of the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad in Tampa, Florida. There is also a cross appeal challenging that part of said judgment holding that the Tampa Electric Company acquired title to its roadbed by adverse possession, based on long use.
We have examined the record and the briefs and we are convinced that the judgment appealed from should be affirmed as to the main appeal, on authority of Seaboard Air Line Railroad v. Southern Investment Co., 53 Fla. 832, 44 So. 351 and certiorari denied. Since this appeal is from an interlocutory decree granting a temporary injunction, we withhold our judgment as to cross appeal till the case reaches us on the merits, so certiorari is denied as to cross appeal.
THOMAS, C. J., CHAPMAN and SEBRING, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nazareth v. Herndon Ambulance Serv., Inc., 467 So. 2d 1076 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)…647, 250 A. 2d 874 (1969). Once the undertaking to transport a passenger has begun, this extraordinary duty to the passenger arises, and does not terminate until the journey is complete. Henderson; Loftin v. Florida Cities Bus Company, 159 Fla. 514, 32 So. 2d 166 (1947). This is characterized in terms of tort liability as a non-delegable duty owed by the employer.6 These two causes of action, one in tort and one in contract, may coexist in an action against a carrier. See Banfield v. Addington, 104 Fla. 661,…
-
Edwards v. Jacksonville Coach Co., 88 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 1956)…cked, but it is difficult for us to understand how the discussion of the prevailing principle could have been affected by the lack of an assault on the declaration. The last case cited by appellant is Loftin v. Florida Cities Bus Co., 159 Fla. 514, 32 So. 2d 166, 167. It appears that the plaintiff in that case, who was pregnant, attempted to alight from a bus. Her condition was so obvious as to serve notice on the operator of the bus that she was in need of assistance. It was held that “[w]hen a common carr…
-
Smith v. Seaboard Air Line R.R. Co., 215 F.2d 365 (5th Cir. 1954)…k by real estate agents is not sufficient to estop the appellant from asserting whatever rights she otherwise has under the laws of Florida. Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. Southern Inv. Co., 53 Fla. 832, 44 So. 351; Atlantic Coastline R. Co. v. Kickliter, 159 Fla. 516, 32 So. 2d 166; Theobold v. Louisville, N. O., & T. Ry. Co., 66 Miss. 279, 6 So. 230, 4 L.R.A. 735, 14 Am.St.Rep. 564; Kramer v. City of Lakeland, Fla., 38 So. 2d 126; 18 Am.Jur. 829; Eminent Domain, Section 198, Private Railroads; 10 McQuillin, 772…
Authorities Cited
- Seaboard Air Line Railway v. S. Inv. Co., 53 Fla. 832 (Fla. 1907)