DANIEL LOUIS MOORE, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT

Fla. | 2009-05-07
No. SC05-1779
QUINCE, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, CANADY, POLSTON, LABARGA, and PERRY, JJ., concur.
8 So. 3d 1122 Florida Supreme Court (2009)

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.


Holding

The court held that the decision under review should be reconsidered in light of a prior Supreme Court decision that approved a conflicting appellate decision.


Facts & Procedural History

The Fifth District Court of Appeal issued a decision that expressly and directly conflicted with a Second District Court of Appeal decision. Proceedin…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

We have for review the decision of the Fifth District Court of Appeal in Moore v. State, 909 So.2d 500 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005), which expressly and directly conflicts with the decision of the Second District Court of Appeal in Gordon v. Regier, 839 So.2d 715 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.

We stayed proceedings in this case pending our disposition of Larimore v. State, 2 So.3d 101 (Fla.2008), in which we approved Gordon. Thus, when our decision in Larimore became final, we issued an order directing respondent in the present case to show cause why we should not accept jurisdiction, quash the decision under review and remand for reconsideration in light of our decision in Larimore. Upon consideration of respondent’s response and petitioner’s reply thereto, 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 Fifth District for reconsideration upon application of this Court’s Larimore decision.

It is so ordered.

QUINCE, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, CANADY, POLSTON, LABARGA, and PERRY, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw