ANTONIO F. PENA, AND THE TONY PENA CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, PETITIONERS,
v.
TAMPA FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, A FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, 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 lacked jurisdiction to review the district court's order because no express and direct conflict with another appellate decision was demonstrated.
Petitioners sought review of a district court's order dismissing their interlocutory appeal. The district court granted a motion to dismiss the appeal…
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 Express And Direct Conflict Of Decisions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is a petition filed April 30, 1980, seeking review of the following order of the Second District Court of Appeal:
The attorneys for appellee having filed a motion to dismiss the above-styled interlocutory appeal, upon consideration, it is ORDERED that said motion is granted and the above-styled interlocutory appeal is hereby dismissed. See Southeastern Associates, Inc. v. First Georgia Bank, 362 So. 2d 967 (1st DCA 1978).
The petitioners contend this order conflicts with other Florida appellate decisions and with decisions of the Supreme Court itself.
We find no direct conflict expressly appears in the written order of the district court of appeal as required 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." See Dodi Publishing Co. v. Editorial America, S. A., 385 So. 2d 1369 (Fla.1980). A full discussion of the history and purpose of section 3 of article V, as amended, is contained in Jenkins v. State, 385 So. 2d 1356 (Fla.1980).
The petition is dismissed.
SUNDBERG, C. J., and BOYD, OVER-TON, ENGLAND, ALDERMAN and MCDONALD, JJ., concur. ADKINS, J., dissents for reasons expressed in Jenkins.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Jenkins v. State, 385 So. 2d 1356 (Fla. 1980)
- Dodi Publ'g Co. v. Editorial Am., 385 So. 2d 1369 (Fla. 1980)
- Se. Assocs., Inc. v. First Ga. Bank, 362 So. 2d 967 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)