DODI PUBLISHING COMPANY, PETITIONER,
v.
EDITORIAL AMERICA, S. A., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, RESPONDENT
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 Supreme Court held that it should not reexamine a cited case within a per curiam opinion to determine if that cited case conflicts with other appellate decisions.
A petitioner sought review of a Third District Court of Appeal per curiam opinion, alleging it conflicted with another DCA decision. The Third DCA's o…
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 Per Curiam Opinion cases and more on FLexlaw
OVERTON, Justice.
This is a petition filed April 7,1980, seeking review of the following per curiam opinion of the Third District Court of Appeal:
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Consolidated Electric Supply, Inc. v. Consolidated Electrical Distributors Southeast, Inc., 355 So. 2d 853 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978).
The petitioner contends that the cited case, Consolidated Electric Supply, Inc. v. Consolidated Electrical Distributors Southeast, Inc., conflicts with Williamson v. Answer Phone of Jacksonville, 118 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960), and therefore the instant opinion conflicts with another Florida appellate decision.
The jurisdiction of this Court in this cause is controlled by section 3(b)(3) of article V of the Constitution of the State of Florida, as amended March 11, 1980, effective April 1, 1980, which provides that the Supreme Court: “May review any decision of a district court of appeal .that expressly and directly conflicts with a decision of another district court of appeal or of the supreme court on the same question of law.” A full discussion of the history and purpose of section 3 of article V, as amended, is contained in Jenkins v. State, No. 59,087, 385 So. 2d 1356 (Fla. June 26, 1980).
We reject the assertion that we should reexamine a case cited in a per curiam decision to determine if the contents of that cited case now conflict with other appellate decisions. The issue to be decided from a petition for conflict review is whether there is express and direct conflict in the decision of the district court before us for review, not whether there is conflict in a prior written opinion which is now cited for authority.
The petition is dismissed.
SUNDBERG, C. J., and BOYD, ENGLAND, ALDERMAN and McDONALD, JJ., concur. ADKINS, J., dissents for reasons expressed in Jenkins.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (23 total)
-
Jollie v. State, 405 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 1981)…on rendered without opinion even though a dissenting judge filed a “comprehensive opinion which recited the facts extensively and concluded that the trial court had erred.” Id., 385 So. 2d at 1357. In Dodi Publishing Co. v. Editorial America, S. A., 385 So. 2d 1369, 1369 (Fla. 1980), we held that we did not have jurisdiction to review a district court decision rendered without opinion other than a citation of authority saying: We reject the assertion that we should reexamine a case cited in a per curiam decis…1 / 2
-
Amendments to the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, 685 So. 2d 773 (Fla. 1996)…ted in rules 9.030(a)(2)(A)(i), (ii), (iii), and (iv). A district court decision without opinion is not reviewable on discretionary conflict jurisdiction. See Jenkins v. State, 385 So. 2d 1356 (Fla.1980); Dodi Publishing Co. v. Editorial Am., S.A., 385 So. 2d 1369 (Fla.1980). The discussion of jurisdictional brief requirements in such cases that is contained in the 1977 revision of the committee notes to rule 9.120 should be disregarded. 1984 Amendment. Subdivision (b)(4) is new; subdivision (b)(5) has been…
-
Stevens v. Jefferson, 436 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 1983)…of law capable of causing confusion or disharmony in the law of the state. Therefore it is not the kind of decision which article V, section 3(b)(3) contemplates as being reviewable by this Court. See Dodi Publishing Co. v. Editorial America, S.A., 385 So. 2d 1369 (Fla.1980); Jenkins v. State, 385 So. 2d 1356 (Fla.1980). The mere suggestion by the district court that contrary authority exists, without discussing any points of law, should not be deemed sufficient to create express and direct conflict. State Fa…
Previewing 3 of 23 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Jenkins v. State, 385 So. 2d 1356 (Fla. 1980)
- Williamson v. Answer Phone OF Jacksonville, Inc., 118 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960)
- Consol. Elec. Supply, Inc. v. Consol. Elec. Distribs. Se., Inc., 355 So. 2d 853 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)