THE TEXAS COMPANY, A CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
B. H. DAVIDSON AND JOHN B. SECKINGER, DEFENDANTS IN ERROR
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 Texas Company's petition for rehearing and used the occasion to clarify the proper scope and procedure for rehearing petitions, warning that future violations of these rules would result in dismissal without consideration.
The court held that a petition for rehearing should only present points the court overlooked or failed to consider, and may not include written arguments, citations of authority, or re-argument of points already expressly considered and decided. Violations of these rules will result in dismissal without consideration.
“The proper function of a petition for rehearing is to present to the court in clear, concise terms some point that it overlooked or failed to consider, only this and nothing more.”
Establishes the exclusive proper function of rehearing petitions
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTexas Company filed a petition for rehearing in a case the Florida Supreme Court had previously decided against it. The petition violated established …
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.
Taylor, J.
This cause coming on for consideration upon a petition for rehearing, after due consideration the court being fully advised of its judgment in the premises, it is hereby considered, ordered and adjudged that the said application for rehearing herein be and the same is hereby denied.
We think it proper here to call the attention of the profession to the rules governing applications for hearings.
The proper function of a petition for rehearing is to present to the court in clear, concise terms some point that it overlooked or failed to consider, only this and nothing more. Hull v. Burr, 58 Fla. 475, 50 South. Rep. 768; Jones v. Fox, 23 Fla. 462, 2 South. Rep. 853.
Upon an application for rehearing of a cause decided by this court it is irregular, and an infraction of the rule to accompany the petition with a written argument and citation of authorities. Smith v. Croom, 7 Fla. 180.
An application for rehearing that is practically a joinder of issue with the court as to the correctness of its conclusions upon points involved in its decision that were expressly considered and passed upon, and that re-argues the cause in advance of a permit from the court for such re-argument, is a flagrant violation of the rule, and such an application will not be considered. Jones v. Fox, supra; Steele v. State, 33 Fla. 354, 14 South. Rep. 841; Florida Land Rock Phosphate Co. v. Anderson, 50 Fla. 516, 39 South. Rep. 392; Suwannee & S. P. R. Co. v. West Coast R. Co., 50 Fla. 612, 39 South. Rep. 538; Sauls v. Freeman, 24 Fla. 225, 4 South. Rep. 577.
The petition for rehearing in the present case infracts the rule in all of the above particulars, and th'e profession is hereby put upon notice that in future the court will adhere strictly to the requirements of the rule in such cases, and will visit infractions thereof by a re fusal to consider such applications and with a dismissal thereof.
Browne, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis and West, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Payne v. Ivey, 83 Fla. 436 (Fla. 1922)…its conclusions upon, points involved in its decision that were expressly considered and passed upon, and (3) An Application for rehearing that re-argues the cause in advance of a permit from the court for such rehearing. Texas Company v. Davidson, 76 Fla. 478, 80 South. Rep. 558. The application for rehearing violates the rule in all of the particulars above named, and is, therefore, hereby dismissed. Browne, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis and West, J. J., concur.…
-
Etta C. Mann v. Etchells, 132 Fla. 409 (Fla. 1938)…ained the identical property and retained the payments of $3500.00 with interest. He sought •a judgment for the remaining $1000.00 when the jury rendered a verdict for the defendant. See Payne v. Ivey, 83 Fla. 436, 93 So. 143; Texas Co. v. Davidson, 76 Fla. 478, 80 So. 558. While, this Court is subject to all human frailties, the duty and responsibility rests with it not only to administer the law impartially but to see that in all cases right and justice shall prevail. The lower court was of the opinion…
-
Sherwood v. State, 111 So. 2d 96 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)…ess of its conclusions upon points involved in its decision that were expressly considered and passed upon; and (3) an application for rehearing that reargues the cause in advance of a permit from the court for such rehearing. Texas Co. v. Davidson, 76 Fla. 478, 80 So. 558.” Again, dealing with a similar problem in the case of Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. City of Lakeland, 94 Fla. 347, 115 So. 669, 679-680, the Supreme Court said: “It might be well to call counsel’s attention to the rule by which this c…
Previewing 3 of 4 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)
- Sauls v. Freeman, 24 Fla. 225 (Fla. 1888)
- C. H. Jones & Bro. v. Fox, 23 Fla. 462 (Fla. 1887)
- Hull v. Burr, 58 Fla. 475 (Fla. 1909)
- Fla. Land Rock Phosphate Co. v. Anderson, 50 Fla. 516 (Fla. 1905)
- Steele v. State, 33 Fla. 354 (Fla. 1894)
- Suwannee & San Pedro R.R. Co. v. W. Coast Ry. Co., 50 Fla. 612 (Fla. 1905)