HENRY J. STEWART, APPELLANT,
v.
LAURA L. PRESTON ET AL., APPELLEES
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 a petition for rehearing, finding that the grounds presented did not warrant a change in the court's original judgment, which had already addressed the issues raised.
The court held that the grounds for rehearing, including those related to the motion to strike and reply brief, did not present new information warranting a change in the original judgment. The court found no reason to believe its judgment was erroneous.
“The twelfth and thirteenth grounds of the petition are that the court failed to rule on the motion to strike the brief of Columbia Trust Company and that appellant has not had an opportunity to file a reply brief to the brief filed by Columbia Trust Company.”
Identifies the specific grounds raised in the petition for rehearing.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant filed a petition for rehearing, raising twelfth and thirteenth grounds concerning a motion to strike a brief and the opportunity to file a r…
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.
Jones, Circuit Judge.
A petition for rehearing has been filed. All the grounds of the petition except the twelfth and' thirteenth were considered by the court in arriving at the conclusion expressed in the main opinion.
The twelfth and thirteenth grounds of the petition are that the court failed to rule on the motion to strike the brief of Columbia Trust Company and that appellant has not had an opportunity to file a reply brief to the brief filed by Columbia Trust Company.
The court’s attention was not directed to the motion to strike until after the opinion had been filed, but the motion to strike being based upon the ground that Columbia Trust Company is a mere intruder and has no right to file a brief in this .cause presents the same question that was argued fully by counsel for appellant in his first brief and’ again in his second brief in support of the motion to strike. Both of these briefs have been considered and it is not deemed necessary for a proper disposition of the questions involved that appellant should file a third brief.
The petition does not suggest anything that gives the court reason to apprehend that its judgment, which disposes of the motion to strike along with other questions, is erroneous.
A rehearing should be denied.
Browne, C. J., and Taylor, Whitfield, Ellis and West, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. v. City of Lakeland, 94 Fla. 347 (Fla. 1927)…ayson v. Lipscomb, 15 Fla. 558; Jones v. Fox, 23 Fla. 462, 2 South. Rep. 853; Hull v. Burr, 58 Fla. 475, 50 South. Rep. 754; Da Costa v. Dibble, 45 Fla. 237, 33 South. Rep. 466; Malsby v. Gamble, 61 Fla. 327, 54 South. Rep. 766; Stewart. v. Preston, 80 Fla. 479, 86 South. Rep. 348; Sauls v. Freeman, 24 Fla. 225, 4 South. Rep. 577; Hart v. Stribling, 25 Fla. 453, 6 South. Rep. 455; Payne v. Ivey, 83 Fla. 436, 93 South. Rep. 143. In the latter case this Court said, speaking through Mr. [*376] Justice Taylor…
-
Herbert H. Pape, Inc. v. Finch, 102 Fla. 425 (Fla. 1931)…ressed and argued in the petition as they apply to the case at bar are not sound. See Jones v. Fox, 23 Fla. 462, 2 South. Rep. 853; Hull v. Burr, 58 Fla. 475, 50 South. Rep. 768; Malsby v. Gamble, 61 Fla. 327, 54 South. Rep. 766; Stewart v. Preston, 80 Fla. 479, 86 South. Rep. 348; Payne v. Ivey, 83 Fla. 436, 93 South. Rep. 143; A. C. L. R. Co. v. Lakeland, 94 Fla. 347, 115 South. Rep. 669. The petition consists of nothing but an argument in which counsel take issue with the court not only upon the princi…
-
Etta C. Mann v. Etchells, 132 Fla. 409 (Fla. 1938)…v. Lipscomb, 15 Fla. 558; Jones v. Fox, 23 Fla. 462, 2 South. Rep. 853; Hull v. Burr, 58 Fla. 475, 50 South. Rep. 754; DaCosta v. Dibble, 45 Fla. 237, 33 South. Rep. 466; Malsby v. Gam [*418] ble, 61 Fla. 327, 54 South. Rep. 766, Stewart v. Preston, 80 Fla. 479, 86 South. Rep. 348; Sauls v. Freeman, 24 Fla. 225, 4 South. Rep. 577; Hart v. Stribling, 25 Fla. 453, 6 South. Rep. 455; Payne v. Ivey, 83 Fla. 436, 93 South. Rep. 143. “In the latter case this court said, speaking through Mr. Justice Taylor, that…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence