C. H. JONES & BRO., APPELLANTS,
v.
SAMUEL W. FOX, ASSIGNEE, APPELLEE
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 refused to consider a petition for rehearing that was essentially a reargument of the case, citing established court rules. The court emphasized that petitions for rehearing must strictly adhere to procedural rules regarding grounds for application.
The court held that such a petition, which constitutes a reargument, should not be considered. The court's rules strictly limit the scope of petitions for rehearing.
“On reading it we find it to be not what its name implies, but in substance a reargument, with citation of authorities.”
Describes the nature of the petition filed by the appellants.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants filed a document labeled as a petition for rehearing. Upon review, the court found that the petition was not a proper rehearing request but…
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.
The Chiee-Justioe delivered the opinion of the court:
We have in this case a petition that purports to be a petition for rehearing. On reading it we find it to be not what its name implies, but in substance a reargument, with citation of authorities. The practice of this court, as settled by Smith et al., vs. Croom et al., 7 Fla , 180, and First National Bank of Jacksonville vs. Ashmead, et ux., decided at this term, forbids the consideration of such a peth tion. Counsel must confine themselves, in framing a petition for rehearing, to the. matters which the rule prescribes for grounds of application, viz: a concise statement of the particular omission or cause for which the judgment is supposed to be erroneous. More than this is not permitted.
The court refusing to consider this petition, an order will be entered accordingly, the petition, in the language of the rule, “ not (to become) a part of the record ” in the cause.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. v. City of Lakeland, 94 Fla. 347 (Fla. 1927)…y considered and passed upon and that re-argues the cause in advance of a permit from the Court for such argument is violative of the rule and will be denied without further consideration. . See also Finlayson v. Lipscomb, 15 Fla. 558; Jones v. Fox, 23 Fla. 462, 2 South. Rep. 853; Hull v. Burr, 58 Fla. 475, 50 South. Rep. 754; Da Costa v. Dibble, 45 Fla. 237, 33 South. Rep. 466; Malsby v. Gamble, 61 Fla. 327, 54 South. Rep. 766; Stewart. v. Preston, 80 Fla. 479, 86 South. Rep. 348; Sauls v. Freeman, 24 Fla…
-
Forrest Lake v. State, 100 Fla. 373 (Fla. 1930)…this contention is well grounded. A rehearing is a second consideration of a cause for the sole purpose of calling to the attention of the Court' any error, omission or oversight that may have been committed in the first consideration. Jones v. Fox 23 Fla. 462, 2 So. R. 853; Hull v. Burr 58 Fla. 475, 50 So. R. 768; Texas Company v. Davidson 76 Fla. 475, 80 So. R. 558. Rule twenty-five governing practice and procedure before this Court in effect provides that a rehearing must be applied for within thirty d…
-
Herbert H. Pape, Inc. v. Finch, 102 Fla. 425 (Fla. 1931)…this case should be denied not only because the petition violates the rule obtaining in this State controlling such petitions but the views of law expressed and argued in the petition as they apply to the case at bar are not sound. See Jones v. Fox, 23 Fla. 462, 2 South. Rep. 853; Hull v. Burr, 58 Fla. 475, 50 South. Rep. 768; Malsby v. Gamble, 61 Fla. 327, 54 South. Rep. 766; Stewart v. Preston, 80 Fla. 479, 86 South. Rep. 348; Payne v. Ivey, 83 Fla. 436, 93 South. Rep. 143; A. C. L. R. Co. v. Lakeland, 9…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence