STAFFAN R.B. NORDQVIST, M.D., APPELLANT,
v.
REBECA NORDQVIST, 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.
In a family law matter, the Third District Court of Appeal affirmed an order awarding attorney's fees to the wife, rejecting the husband's challenge based on the law of the case doctrine. The court held that its previous denial of the husband's petition for writ of prohibition constituted a decision on the merits, precluding relitigation of the jurisdictional issue on appeal.
The court held that the denial of the petition for writ of prohibition without qualification constituted a decision on the merits, thereby binding the court under the law of the case doctrine to reject the husband's reiteration of the jurisdictional challenge on appeal. Consequently, the order awarding attorney's fees to the wife was affirmed.
[1] A prior denial of a petition for a writ of prohibition without qualification constitutes a ruling on the merits for purposes of the law of the case doctrine.
[2] The doctrine of law of the case binds a court to its previous rulings on an issue when the case is reconsidered.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“we are bound by the doctrine of law of the case to reject the husband's reiteration of this position in the instant appeal from the trial court's order granting the wife's motion for attorney's fees”
Establishes that prior appellate denial of the prohibition petition precludes relitigation under law of the case
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceStaffan R.B. Nordqvist, M.D., sought a writ of prohibition challenging the trial court's jurisdiction to entertain his wife Rebeca Nordqvist's motion …
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 Writ Of Prohibition cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Because we previously denied without qualification the husband Staffan R.B. Nordqvist’s petition for a writ of prohibition and therefore passed on the merits of the petition and necessarily rejected his position asserted therein that the trial court had no jurisdiction to entertain the wife Rebeca Nordqvist’s motion for attorney’s fees below, we are bound by the doctrine of law of the case to reject the husband’s reiteration of this position in the instant appeal from the trial court’s order granting the wife’s motion for attorney’s fees. In Obanion v. State, 496 So. 2d 977, 980 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), rev. denied, 504 So. 2d 768 (Fla.1987), we addressed an argument that this court’s denial of a petition for writ of prohibition without opinion constituted a decision on the merits thereby precluding, under the law of the case doctrine, the petitioner/appellant from relit-igating upon plenary appeal from the final judgment the issue raised in the unsuccessful petition. Acknowleging various procedural bases for denials of petitions for writs of prohibition and the “certain looseness in our past practices” regarding denials of such petitions without opinion, we declined to apply the law of the case doctrine, but “we serve[d] notice to the bench and bar that in the future a denial of a petition for a writ of prohibition will, in fact, be a ruling on the merits, unless otherwise indicated.” Id.
See Reyes v. State, 554 So. 2d 625 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), rev. denied, 562 So. 2d 346 (Fla.1990); Freeman v. State, 554 So. 2d 621 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), rev. denied, 562 So. 2d 345 (Fla.1990); Valsecchi v. Proprietors Ins. Co., 502 So. 2d 1310 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Florida Audubon Soc’y v. Ratner, 497 So. 2d 672, 674 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), rev. denied, 508 So. 2d 15 (Fla.1987). For that reason, the order awarding attorney’s fees for the wife is, in all respects,
Affirmed.
. The Obanion rule supersedes prior law developed in this district in response to our previous loose practices regarding denials of petitions without opinion, cf. American Federation of Government Employees v. DeGrio, 454 So. 2d 632 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (example of the result of our prior practices; refusing res judicata effect to denial of petition without opinion in absence of affirmative appearance that denial was on the merits or that a merits determination was the sole possible ground for denial), aff’d on other grounds, 484 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1986); Coral Reef Nurseries, Inc. v. Babcock Co., 410 So. 2d 648, 651 n. 6 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (same), by clarifying that all future denials are to be considered merit determinations (to which law of the case attaches) unless the court otherwise indicates.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sumner v. Selma R. Sumner, 707 So. 2d 934 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)…that despite a “certain looseness in our past practices,” the denial of a petition for writ of prohibition would constitute a ruling on the merits, foreclosing post-trial appellate review, unless otherwise indicated. See also Nordqvist v. Nordqvist, 586 So. 2d 1282 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Freeman v. State, 554 So. 2d 621 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). This position was subsequently endorsed by Judge Anstead in a concurring opinion in DeGennaro v. Janie Dean Chevrolet, Inc., 600 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). The Florida Sup…1 / 2
-
Adams v. Dickinson, 672 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)…nd Chow’s claim of entitlement to such fees. Accordingly, the trial court’s order denying Adams and Chow’s motion for trial level fees is affirmed. See Jacobson v. Humana Medical Plan, Inc., 636 So. 2d 120 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Nordqvist v. Nordqvist, 586 So. 2d 1282 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). As for Adams and Chow’s claim for appellate attorney’s fees, the trial court denied the motion reasoning that the supreme court’s previous ruling denying their claim for such fees became the “law of the case.” While we affirm th…
Authorities Cited
- Coral Reef Nurseries, Inc. v. The Babcock Co., 410 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Bertrand Obanion v. State, 496 So. 2d 977 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- John and Janet Valsecchi v. Proprietors Ins. Co., 502 So. 2d 1310 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- Joella DeGRIO v. Am. Fed'n OF Gov't Emps., 484 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1986)
- Fla. Audubon Soc'y v. Nat Ratner, 497 So. 2d 672 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- Raphael J. Musicus v. Playa DEL SOL Ass'n, Inc., 454 So. 2d 632 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Freeman v. State, 554 So. 2d 621 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- Reyes v. State, 554 So. 2d 625 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)