JASON STEELE, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, DEFENDANT IN ERROR-ON APPLICATION FOR REHEARING
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.
Jason Steele sought a rehearing of his criminal case after the Florida Supreme Court had already decided it. The court denied the application, finding that Steele's arguments did not undermine the correctness of its original findings and that the application violated procedural rules for rehearing requests.
The application for rehearing is denied. The court found nothing in the application that shook its conviction as to the correctness of its original findings, and the application violated established rules governing rehearing applications by essentially re-arguing the cause rather than presenting new considerations.
“the application for rehearing is practically a joinder of issue with the court as to the correctness of its findings upon points involved therein that were expressly passed upon and considered; in reality, a re-argument of the cause in advance of any conclusion from us upon the application for such reargument”
Establishes that the application violated procedural rules by re-arguing the case rather than presenting new considerations warranting rehearing
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe case involved a submission on briefs before the Florida Supreme Court. Steele's counsel claimed that the Attorney-General had agreed to send him a…
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 Application For Rehearing cases and more on FLexlaw
Taylor, J.:
An application for a rehearing of this cause has been made. After careful consideration thereof we find 'nothing in it that shakes our conviction of the correctness of our findings in the cause, or that is suggestive .-of anything material to the proper determination -thereof that has been overlooked by us, or that has not at our hands received due and careful consideration. Indeed, the application for rehearing is practically a joinder of issue with the court as to the correctness of its findings upon points involved therein that were expressly passed upon and considered; in reality a re-argument of the cause in advance of any conclusion from us upon the application for such reargument; and, in this respect, it is violative of the well-established rules governing applications for the rehearing of causes. Jones & Bro. vs. Fox, 23 Fla., 462, 2 South. Rep., 853; First National Bank of Florida vs. Ashmead, 23 Fla., 379, 2 South. Rep., 665; Smith and Armistead vs. Croom, 7 Fla., 180.
One of the grounds of the application for rehearing is, that the cause was inadvertently submitted on brief by the Attorney-General, representing the State, in unintentional violation of an agreement existing between himself and the counsel for the plaintiff in error, to the effect that the Attorney-General would send him a copy of his brief as soon as prepared, and notify him of a day to be set for the hearing of the cause; at which hearing counsel desired and intended to present the case by oral argument; but that in consequence of the Attorney-General’s failure to notify him, and to send him the promised copy af his brief, the cause was submitted upon briefs only, and he was deprived of the opportunity to present the case orally and to file an additional brief therein. The existence •of any such agreement has never been called to our attention in any manner until presented in this application; and as the cause was submitted upon briefs for the plaintiff in error by one of the counsel appearing for the rehearing, and for the State, without notice to us of the existence of such an agreement, we could not be expected to be guided orgoverned by it in the disposition of the cause. When-the parties or their counsel-enter into agreements affecting any causes before this-court, such agreements must be filed here with the-record therein, otherwise we can not consider them or-be governed thereby in any manner. In view of the fact that, upon a review of the record in the canse, we find nothing suggestive of the propriety of a change of the conclusions already reached therein, and in the absence from the application for such rehearing of anything indicating any necessity therefor, the application for rehearing is denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nat'l Sur. Co. v. Willys-Overland, Inc., 103 Fla. 738 (Fla. 1931)…idance if desired, than to have it alleged in the complaint, as authorities are not agreed as to whether a compromise may be shown under the general issue. 12 C. J. 362-363. While the rule, as expressed by this Court in the case of Steele v. State, 33 Fla. 354, 14 So. 841, is that agreements of counsel as to the disposition of causes must be filed otherwise the Court cannot take notice of them, it does not necessarily mean that a plea may not set up a parol agreement that all matters then in controversy w…
-
COE v. Diener, 159 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)…f fairly made between competent parties, because it is to the interest of the state and the parties themselves that there should be an end to litigation. * * * * * * * * * “While the rule, as expressed by this court in the case of Steele v. State, 33 Fla. 354, 14 So. 841, is that agreements of counsel as to the disposition of causes must be filed otherwise the court cannot take notice of them, it does not necessarily mean that a plea may not set up a parol agreement that all matters then in controversy w…
-
Williams v. Pitt, 38 Fla. 162 (Fla. 1896)…burden of proof which rests upon them. Properly speaking, the agreement being in reference to a cause before this court, should have been in writing and filed here, in'order for us to consider it or be governed by it in any manner. Steele vs. State, 33 Fla. 354, 14 South. Rep. 841. The sixth ground — in regard to abstracts of the record on file in this court — is well taken. The paper purporting to be an abstract of the record is only a list of the papers filed in the case in chronological order, with som…
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
- Smith and Armistead v. Croom, 7 Fla. 180 (Fla. 1857)
- The First Nat'l Bank of Fla. v. Ashmead, 23 Fla. 379 (Fla. 1887)
- C. H. Jones & Bro. v. Fox, 23 Fla. 462 (Fla. 1887)