C. WAYNE SPILLERS, APPELLANT,
v.
EUGENE HALL, APPELLEE; BILLY JACK'S INC., APPELLANT, V. EUGENE HALL, 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 court remanded the case for a new trial because the trial court and initial appellate panel lacked guidance from Allen v. Babrab, Inc. and Stevens v. Jefferson when deciding liability issues that must now be reconsidered under those precedents.
A case must be remanded for new trial when intervening supreme court precedent establishes new legal boundaries for liability that were not available to the trial court and initial appellate panel.
[1] When intervening supreme court precedent establishes new legal boundaries for liability, a case must be remanded for new trial so that the complaint, trial proceedings, a…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThis action between Spillers and Hall, and Billy Jack's Inc. and Hall, had been decided by the trial court and initially appealed, but the Florida Sup…
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 Remand For New Trial cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The above-styled action is again before us following remand from the supreme court for reconsideration in the light of Allen v. Babrab, Inc., 438 So. 2d 356 (Fla.1983) and Stevens v. Jefferson, 436 So. 2d 33 (Fla.1983). Hall v. Billy Jack’s, Inc., 458 So. 2d 760 (Fla.1984). At the reargument of this matter, we accorded counsel for the parties the opportunity to submit additional briefs in order to explicate their respective positions in the context of the supreme court’s opinion. We have received and considered the post-argument briefs. We adopt the factual setting set forth in our initial opinion. Spillers v. Hall, 428 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982).
We have examined the record in its entirety and we have determined this matter must be remanded for a new trial. When this proceeding was before the trial court and this court, neither had the benefit of Babrab and Stevens. Upon remand, the proceeding should be conducted upon a complaint marked by the boundaries expressed in Babrab and Stevens. Finally, the question of liability should be tendered to a jury with instructions embodying the principles announced in Babrab and Stevens.
Remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
RYDER, C.J., and DANAHY and FRANK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Stevens v. Jefferson, 436 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 1983)
- Hall v. Billy Jack's, Inc., 458 So. 2d 760 (Fla. 1984)
- Allen v. Babrab, Inc., 438 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 1983)
- Spillers v. Hall, 428 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)