SAMUEL NEWBY, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, 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 Florida Supreme Court quashed the Fourth District's decision in Newby v. State because it relied on reasoning disapproved in Yisrael v. State, and remanded for reconsideration under the correct legal standard.
A lower court decision that relies on reasoning disapproved by the Supreme Court must be quashed and remanded for reconsideration under the correct legal framework.
[1] When a lower court decision relies on legal reasoning that the Supreme Court subsequently disapproves, the decision must be quashed and remanded for reconsideration under…
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 intelligenceNewby's case was decided by the Fourth District Court of Appeal based on reasoning from Yisrael v. State, which the Supreme Court later disapproved in…
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 Remand For Reconsideration cases and more on FLexlaw
We have for review Newby v. State, 945 So.2d 636 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006), in which the Fourth District Court of Appeal relied upon its decision in Yisrael v. State, 938 So.2d 546 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (en banc), disapproved in part, 993 So.2d 952 (Fla.2008), and certified conflict with the First District Court of Appeal’s decision in Gray v. State, 910 So.2d 867 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.
We stayed proceedings in this case pending our disposition of Yisrael, in which we: (1) approved the decision of the First District in Gray, and (2) disapproved the reasoning and rule of law articulated by the Fourth District in its underlying decision, but ultimately approved the result reached by that court on other grounds. See Yisrael v. State, 993 So.2d 952, 960-61 (Fla.2008). We then issued an order directing the State to show cause why we should not exercise jurisdiction, summarily quash the decision under review, and remand for reconsideration in light of our decision in Yisrael. The State concedes that it cannot show such cause, and petitioner Newby agrees.
Accordingly, we grant the petition for review, quash, and remand to the Fourth District Court of Appeal for reconsideration upon application of our decision in Yisrael.
It is so ordered.
QUINCE, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, CANADY, and POLSTON, JJ., concur.
LABARGA, J., recused.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Newby v. State, 17 So. 3d 917 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)…PER CURIAM. We reconsider on remand our opinion in Newby v. State, 945 So. 2d 636 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006), which was quashed by the Florida Supreme Court following its decision in Newby v. State, 7 So. 3d 518 (Fla. 2009). As ordered by the supreme court, we apply its decision in Yisrael v. State, 993 So. 2d 952 (Fla.2008), to the facts of this case. [*918] In Yisrael, the supreme court disapproved of this court’s holding in Yisrael v. State, 938 So. 2d 5…
Authorities Cited
- Yisrael v. State, 993 So. 2d 952 (Fla. 2008)
- Mitchell v. State, 938 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)
- Gray v. State, 910 So. 2d 867 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)
- Newby v. State, 945 So. 2d 636 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)