RICARDO REDONDO, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
WHEREAS, the judgment of this court was entered on March 4, 1980, 380 So. 2d 1107, reversing the judgment and sentence of the Circuit Court for Dade County, Florida, in the above styled cause; and WHEREAS, on review of this court’s judgment, by certiorari, the Supreme Court of Florida, 403 So. 2d 954, by its opinion and judgment filed July 23, 1981 and mandate now lodged in this court, affirmed in part and reversed in part.
NOW, THEREFORE, It is Ordered that the mandate of this court heretofore issued in this cause on March 20, 1980 is withdrawn the judgment of this court filed in this cause on March 4, 1980, except as is affirmed by the judgment of the Supreme Court dated July 23, 1981, is vacated and the said opinion and judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida is herewith made the opinion and judgment of this court. The judgment and sentence appealed from herein is reversed in part and affirmed in part and the cause is remanded to the trial court for a new trial on the charge of simple battery. Costs allowed shall be taxed in the trial court (Rule 9.400 a Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pabian v. Pabian, 469 So. 2d 189 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)…ch were properly ordered to be posted as bond (totalling $7,811.19). The trial court on remand may also consider such other amounts or conditions as are necessary to protect the appel-lee’s judgment for the $7,811.19. As noted in Cerrito v. Kovitch, 406 So. 2d 125, 126 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), the trial court has “considerable latitude in controlling the circumstances under which the proceedings may be stayed pending review.” We therefore grant the motion for review and modification of supersedeas bond in part a…
-
Nelson v. Honorable John E. Santora, 570 So. 2d 1374 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…he bond is excessive and an abuse of the trial court’s discretion. Appellants contended the bond should have been calculated to protect the interests of the mortgagee which are not adequately secured by the property at issue. See Cerrito v. Kovitch, 406 So. 2d 125 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). However, since the appellants filed a bond in the ordered amount, the motion was denied as moot. Although the supersedeas bond was subsequently stricken, Nelson did not move this court for review of that order.…
-
Dice v. Cameron, 424 So. 2d 173 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…t the amount in controversy was the additional $39,784.612 claimed by appellant, and consequently set the amount of the supersedeas bond at 115% of that sum. I think the cases of Bernstein v. Bernstein, 43 So. 2d 356 (Fla.1949); Cerrito v. Kovitch, 406 So. 2d 125 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Mosar Developers, Inc. v. Creech & Wilson, Inc., 404 So. 2d 118 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); and Fidelity and Deposit Co. of Maryland v. Atlantic National Bank of Jacksonville, 234 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970), if not controlling prece…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Redondo v. State, 403 So. 2d 954 (Fla. 1981)
- Redondo v. State, 380 So. 2d 1107 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)