EX PARTE S. PETER HORNE
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 denied an application to recall its mandate and permit the filing of a petition for rehearing in a prior case. The court found no mistake or new arguments that warranted reconsideration.
No, the court should not recall its mandate because the petition for rehearing presented no new arguments or suggestions of mistake that had not already been duly considered.
“by reason of its exceptional character it was best that the mandate issue forthwith, and it was so ordered.”
Explains the court's prior decision to expedite the issuance of the mandate.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe court had previously issued a mandate in the case of State of Florida v. S. Peter Horne, ordering the mandate to issue forthwith due to its except…
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 Recall Of Mandate cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam:
This is an application to the court to recall the mandate issued at this terra in the case of the State of Florida v. S. Peter Horne and to permit the filing of a petition for rehearing. The judgment of this court was entered November 27, 1906, and upon mature consideration we determined that the mandate should not await Hie thirty days usual in ordinary cases, but by reason of its exceptional character it was best that the mandate issue forthwith, and it was so ordered. Within the thirty days a petition for rehearing was presented to the Clerk, but the filing was refused upon the sole ground that the mandate had gone down.
There is no suggestion of mistake or imposition upon the court and under the circumstances our power to recall the mandate may be questioned. ,Out of abundant caution, however, we have examined the petition presented to the .Clerk, and find nothing suggested therein which was not duly and deliberately passed upon by us, and nothing upon which we would have felt called upon to grant the rehearing had the mandate not issued.
The application is denied.
All concur.