MARY DAVIS AND JACK DAVIS, HER HUSBAND, PETITIONERS,
v.
MOLLIE MANDAU, BILLY H. BRYANT, PAUL F. DICKEN, ROCKS & STONES, INC., BIFF-BURGER OF CLEWISTON, INC., NATIONAL BIFF-BURGER, CLEWISTON BUILDERS, INC., SWINDLE BROS. DRAGLINE & PAVING, AND DONALD R. EVANS D/B/A EVANS PLUMBING & SUPPLY CO., RESPONDENTS
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.
Florida Supreme Court dismissed petitioners' review petition because they sought to challenge a summary judgment affirmance on grounds different from the certified conflict, and the Court lacked jurisdiction over non-certified issues.
A court lacks jurisdiction to review issues not certified as conflicting by the district court, even if petitioners raise different grounds for review.
[1] A supreme court lacks jurisdiction to review issues not certified as conflicting by the district court, even when petitioners raise alternative grounds for review.
[2] An affirmance without opinion cannot establish express and direct conflict with other decisions necessary for supreme court jurisdiction.
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“where the conflict certified has not been brought to us for review, we likewise do not have jurisdiction”
The Court explained its lack of jurisdiction to review issues not certified as conflicting by the district court.
The District Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for respondents but certified a conflict regarding the trial court's cost order for depositions…
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 Certified Conflict cases and more on FLexlaw
ALDERMAN, Justice.
The District Court of Appeal, Second District, in Davis v. Mandau, 400 So. 2d 89 (Fla.2d DCA 1981), affirmed in summary fashion the trial court’s entry of summary judgment for respondents but decided that the trial court erred in entering a cost order in favor of respondent Evans to the extent that it taxed the costs of depositions. The district court then certified that the portion of its decision relating to the award of costs for depositions conflicts with several decisions. Evans, against whom this decision was made, has chosen not to seek review of the district court’s decision. Rather, petitioners, who prevailed on this point in the district court, now seek review of the district court’s decision on an entirely different basis. They argue that the district court erred in affirming the summary judgments in favor of appellees and attempt to demonstrate conflict of decisions on this point.
In Petrik v. New Hampshire Insurance Co., 400 So. 2d 8 (Fla.1981), where the question certified was not brought to us for review, we held that we did not have jurisdiction to review other issues. In the present case, where the conflict certified has not been brought to us for review, we likewise do not have jurisdiction. Furthermore, the district court’s decision on the summary judgment issue was effectually an affirmance without opinion with which express and direct conflict cannot be established. Jenkins v. State, 385 So. 2d 1356 (Fla.1980).
Accordingly, the petition for review is dismissed.
It is so ordered. BOYD, OVERTON and McDONALD, JJ., “concur. ADKINS, Acting C. J., dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Jenkins v. State, 385 So. 2d 1356 (Fla. 1980)
- Petrik v. NEW Hampshire Ins. Co., 400 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 1981)
- Davis v. Mollie Mandau, 400 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)