BAY RAG & GRADING, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
C & H CLOTHING, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND ONEITA INDUSTRIES, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, APPELLEES
BAY RAG & GRADING, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
C & H CLOTHING, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND ONEITA INDUSTRIES, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, APPELLEES
652 So. 2d 893
Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1995)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 27 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. Trinchitella v. D.R.F., Inc., 584 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); School Bd. v. Pinellas County Comm’n, 404 So. 2d 1178 (Fla.2d DCA 1981) (appellate court cannot consider issues raised for the first time in a motion for rehearing in the trial court), rev. denied, 413 So. 2d 877 (Fla.1982).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (16 total)
-
Kaynan Fitchner v. Lifesouth Cmty. Blood Ctrs., Inc., 88 So. 3d 269 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)…ly ministerial, and its function is limited to obeying the appellate court’s order or decree. A trial court does not have discretionary power to alter or modify the mandate of an appellate court in any way, shape or form.”) (quoting Torres v. Jones, 652 So. 2d 893, 894 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (citations omitted)); Huffman v. Moore, 834 So. 2d 300, 301 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). In the judgment now on appeal, the trial judge (although after a series of what I believe to be unnecessary steps below) followed this rule. But…
-
Hearns v. State, 54 So. 3d 500 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)…comes purely ministerial, and its function is limited to obeying the appellate court’s order or decree. A trial court does not have discretionary power to alter or modify the mandate of an appellate court in any way, shape or form.” Torres v. Jones, 652 So. 2d 893, 894 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (citations omitted). The trial court in this case was led astray by the prosecution arguing that under the Collins case, the court was free to conduct a de novo sentencing. Collins held that because resentencing was a de nov…
-
Basic Energy Corp. v. Hamilton Cnty., 667 So. 2d 249 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…ecree.... A trial court does not have discretionary power to alter or modify the mandate of an appellate court in any way, shape or form,” and may not “change the law of the case as determined by the highest court hearing the case.” Torres v. Jones, 652 So. 2d 893 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). However, further inquiry may be necessary to determine what is required in order to comply with the mandate. “A remand phrased in language which limits the issues for determination will preclude consideration of new matters affe…
Previewing 3 of 16 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Amadeo Trinchitella v. D.R.F., Inc., 584 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)
- The Sch. Bd. OF Pinellas Cnty. v. The Pinellas Cnty. Comm'n & Metric Constructors, Inc., 404 So. 2d 1178 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)
- Midflorida Schs. Fed. Credit Union v. Fansler, 404 So. 2d 1178 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)