ST. LUCIE HARVESTING AND CARETAKING CORP. N/K/A ST. LUCIE CARETAKING CORP., AND TEN MILE CREEK GROVES, INC., APPELLANTS,
v.
VICENTE CERVANTES, 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 appellate court reversed the trial court's order granting a new trial and vacating a directed verdict, holding that the trial court lacked authority to disregard the appellate mandate directing entry of judgment for the defendants.
A trial court lacks authority to disregard an appellate court's mandate directing entry of a directed verdict and must reenter that judgment as previously directed.
[1] A trial court lacks authority to disregard an appellate mandate and must reenter a judgment as directed, even if counsel seeks to introduce evidence not presented at tria…
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 intelligenceSt. Lucie Harvesting and Caretaking Corp. and Ten Mile Creek Groves, Inc. were defendants in a case brought by Vicente Cervantes. After an initial jud…
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 Mandate Of Appellate Court cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by St. Lucie Harvesting and Caretaking Corp. and Ten Mile Creek Groves, Inc., defendants and orange grove owners, from two St. Lucie Circuit Court orders: (1) an October 26, 1994, order granting appellee/plaintiff Vicente Cervantes’ motion for a new trial, and (2) a November 9, 1994, order vacating the judgment of directed verdict and judgment for costs against Cervantes entered pursuant to this court’s mandate from an appeal in St. Lucie Harvesting and Caretaking Corp. v. Cervantes, 639 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 642 So. 2d 1362 (Fla.1994). There, this court reversed and remanded an original judgment for appellee/plaintiff Cervantes and directed the entry of a directed verdict in favor of the defendant orange grove owners. Here, we reverse the order for new trial and order vacating the judgment of directed verdict and judgment for costs, and remand to the trial court for reentry of the judgment of directed verdict and judgment of costs for defendants as we previously directed.
Appellee’s counsel has led the trial court into error by attempting — for the first time after our decision — to seek retrial of this case by introducing available evidence which appellee’s counsel did not seek to introduce at trial. Our previous direction being clear, the trial court was without authority to disregard that direction. See Apalachicola N.R.R. v. Tyus, 114 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959), quashed on other grounds, 130 So. 2d 580 (Fla.1961).
The court has duly considered and rejected all of appellee’s arguments.
GLICKSTEIN, DELL and STONE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pelican Real Est. & Dev. Co., Inc. v. Boone, 60 So. 3d 502 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)…ate court as long as the facts on which such decision are based continue to be the facts of the case”), and the requirement of strict adherence to the terms of a previous appellate mandate. See St. Lucie Harvesting and Caretaking Corp. v. Cervantes, 664 So. 2d 7, 7 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (narrowly limiting trial court discretion to deviate from scope of mandate on remand where mandate is clear and decided). The record shows that the trial court properly resolved the very limited issue remanded for its consider…
-
Fischer-McGANN, Inc. v. Gene B. Glick Co., Inc., 715 So. 2d 994 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…ctor’s pending claims and the judgment to Fischer. The trial court was not free on remand to go beyond that purpose. O.P. Corp. v. Village of N. Palm Beach, 302 So. 2d 130, 131 (Fla.1974); St. [*996] Lucie Harvesting & Caretaking Corp. v. Cervantes, 664 So. 2d 7, 8 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). The trial court misapplied our reference to Morris & Esher by relying on its primary holding rather than on the narrower proposition for which it was cited, that an owner (or general contractor) should not be subjected to do…
Authorities Cited
- Tyus v. Apalachicola N. R.R. Co., 130 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 1961)
- Apalachicola N. R.R. Co. v. Tyus, 114 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959)
- ST. Lucie Harvesting & Caretaking Corp. v. Vicente Cervantes, 639 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)