ROBERT EARL CASE, JR., PETITIONER,
v.
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, 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.
Robert Earl Case, Jr. sought certiorari review of a circuit court decision affirming summary judgment in favor of General Motors Corporation. The First District Court of Appeal granted the petition in part, quashing the circuit court's decision regarding Case's claims for damages and pre-judgment interest because the lower courts failed to properly analyze whether Case had alleged a violation of Florida's Lemon Law statute (chapter 681).
The circuit court correctly affirmed the county court's finding that Case was not statutorily entitled to attorney's fees for Lemon Law arbitration representation. However, the circuit court departed from the essential requirements of the law by affirming the dismissal of Case's damages and pre-judgment interest claims based on the alleged failure to allege a chapter 681 violation.
[1] A petition for writ of certiorari is granted only when there has been a violation of a clearly established principle of law.
[2] Clearly established law may derive from recent controlling case law, rules of court, statutes, and constitutional law.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“In a petition for writ of certiorari, review is limited to determining whether the lower court afforded procedural due process and whether the lower court applied the correct law.”
Establishes the standard of review for certiorari petitions in Florida.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCase filed suit against General Motors Corporation in county court seeking damages, attorney's fees for Lemon Law arbitration representation, and pre-…
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 Application Of Correct Law cases and more on FLexlaw
Petitioner, Robert Earl Case, Jr., seeks review of a circuit court decision affirming the county court’s entry of final judgment in favor of Respondent, General Motors Corporation, after granting Respondent’s motion for summary judgment. We grant the petition and quash in part the order of the circuit court because the circuit court departed from the essential requirements of the law.
In a petition for writ of certiora-ri, review is limited to determining whether the lower court afforded procedural due process and whether the lower court applied the correct law. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Kaklamanos, 843 So.2d 885, 889 (Fla.2003). A petition for certiorari should only be granted when there has been a violation of a clearly established principle of law. Id. A “clearly established law” may “derive from a variety of legal sources, including recent controlling case law, rules of court, statutes, and constitutional law.” Id. at 890.
In the county court, Petitioner filed suit against Respondent seeking damages, attorney’s fees for representation during Lemon Law arbitration, and pre-judgment interest. The county court granted Respondent’s motion for summary judgment and entered final judgment in Respondent’s favor by finding that Petitioner failed to allege a violation of chapter 681, which was a pre-requisite to his claims for damages and pre-judgment interest, and that Petitioner was not statutorily entitled *1060to attorney’s fees from arbitration. On appeal, the circuit court affirmed the final judgment without discussion.
The circuit court applied the correct law when it affirmed the portion of the county court’s order finding that Petitioner was not statutorily entitled to receive attorney’s fees for representation during Lemon Law arbitration. Gen. Motors Corp. v. Sanchez, 16 So.3d 883 (Fla. 3d DC A 2009). However, the circuit court departed from the essential requirements of the law when it affirmed those portions of the county court’s order finding that Petitioner failed to allege a violation of chapter 681 in his complaint. Gelinas v. Forest River, Inc., 931 So.2d 970 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006), review denied, 954 So.2d 27 (Fla.2007). We accordingly grant the petition and quash the circuit court’s decision only as to Petitioner’s claims for damages and pre-judgment interest.
GRANTED.
BARFIELD, DAVIS, and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Keely Kaklamanos, 843 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 2003)
- Flores v. State, 954 So. 2d 27 (Fla. 2007)
- Gelinas v. Forest River, Inc., 931 So. 2d 970 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)
- Gen. Motors Corp. v. Sanchez, 16 So. 3d 883 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)
- Buehl v. Piroska Buehl, 16 So. 3d 883 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009)