RODOLFO CASAS, PETITIONER,
v.
SIEMENS ENERGY AND AUTOMATION, INC., RESPONDENT
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 court quashed the decision under review and remanded for reconsideration in light of a prior Supreme Court decision.
The Third District Court of Appeal issued a decision in Casas v. Siemens Energy & Automation, Inc., citing its decision in Bombay Co., Inc. v. Bakerma…
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 Stare Decisis cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We have for review Casas v. Siemens Energy & Automation, Inc., 927 So. 2d 922 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006), in which the Third District Court of Appeal cited with approval its decision in Bombay Co., Inc. v. Bakerman, 891 So. 2d 555 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004), quashed, 961 So. 2d 259 (Fla.2007). At the time the Third District Court issued its decision in Casas, Bakerman was pending review in this Court. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.; Jollie v. State, 405 So. 2d 418 (Fla.1981).
We stayed proceedings in this case pending disposition of Bakerman, in which this Court ultimately quashed the Third District Court’s underlying Bakerman decision. See Bakerman v. Bombay Co., Inc., 961 So. 2d 259 (Fla.2007). We accordingly issued an order directing respondent to show cause why we should not accept jurisdiction in the present case, quash the Casas decision, and remand for reconsideration in light of our decision in Bakerman. Upon consideration of respondent’s response, petitioner’s reply thereto, and the parties’ previously filed jurisdictional briefs, we have determined to so proceed.
We accordingly grant the petition for review in the present case. The decision under review is quashed and this matter is remanded to the Third District Court of Appeal for reconsideration upon application of this Court’s decision in Bakerman.
It is so ordered. LEWIS, C.J., and WELLS, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, QUINCE, CANTERO, and BELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Casas v. Siemens Energy & Automation, Inc., 1 So. 3d 294 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)…ed Bakerman I, holding that this Court erred in adding concealment as an essential element to the substantial certainty test, this case has been remanded to us for reconsideration without that element. See Casas v. Siemens Energy & Automation, Inc., 969 So. 2d 356 (Fla.2007) (“Casas II”). Since our decision in Casas v. Siemens Energy & Automation, Inc., 927 So. 2d 922 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (“Casas /”), did not [*300] turn on the now discredited concealment element, I would affirm for the same reasons stated in…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Jollie v. State, 405 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 1981)
- Bakerman v. THE Bombay Co., Inc., 961 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 2007)
- THE Bombay Co., Inc. v. Bakerman, 891 So. 2d 555 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)
- Hawkins v. State, 927 So. 2d 922 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)
- Casas v. Siemens Energy & Automation, Inc., 927 So. 2d 922 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)