PELICAN REAL ESTATE & DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC., AND WILLIAM SMITH, APPELLANTS,
v.
RICHARD BOONE, APPELLEE
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 appellate court affirmed the trial court's amended final order on remand, holding that the trial court properly resolved the limited issue remanded and was precluded from addressing additional substantive claims under doctrines of finality, law of the case, and strict adherence to the appellate mandate.
A trial court on remand must strictly adhere to the scope of the appellate mandate and is neither required nor permitted to address issues beyond those specifically remanded for reconsideration.
[1] A trial court on remand is bound by the scope of the appellate mandate and may not address issues beyond those specifically remanded for reconsideration, even if raised o…
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 intelligence“present all claims to the extent possible, at one time, and one time only”
Arky, Freed, Stearns, Watson, Greer, Weaver Harris, P.A. v. Bowmar Instrument Corp., 537 So. 2d 561, 563 (Fla.1988), requiring litigants in the interests of finality and judicial economy to present all claims together.
The case was remanded to the trial court following a prior appellate decision in Boone v. Pelican Real Estate & Dev. Co., Inc., 13 So. 3d 528 (Fla. 1s…
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 Finality Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
Both sides appeal an amended final order entered after we remanded the case to the trial court in Boone v. Pelican Real Estate & Dev. Co., Inc., 13 So.3d 528 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). We need not decide the merits of any of the substantive points raised on appeal or cross-appeal because even considering them is precluded by the effect of the prior judgment and our previous opinion under doctrines of finality, see Arky, Freed, Stearns, Watson, Greer, Weaver Harris, P.A. v. Bowmar Instrument Corp., 537 So.2d 561, 563 (Fla.1988) (requiring litigants, in the interests of finality and judicial economy, to “present all claims to the extent possible, at one time, and one time only”), the law of the case, see Florida Department of Transportation v. Juliano, 801 So.2d 101, 105-06 (Fla.2001) (binding trial court “to follow prior rulings of the appellate court as long as the facts on which such decision are based continue to be the facts of the case”), and the requirement of strict adherence to the terms of a previous appellate mandate. See St. Lucie Harvesting and Caretaking Corp. v. Cervantes, 664 So.2d 7, 7 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (narrowly limiting trial court discretion to deviate from scope of mandate on remand where mandate is clear and decided). The record shows that the trial court properly resolved the very limited issue remanded for its consideration. It was neither required nor permitted to go further.
AFFIRMED.
PADOVANO and CLARK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kaynan Fitchner v. Lifesouth Cmty. Blood Ctrs., Inc., 88 So. 3d 269 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)…emost is the application of the doctrine of “law of the case” of Fitchner I that a pre-suit notice was indispensable to the maintenance of this claim. See Strazzulla v. Hendrick, 177 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1965); Pelican Real Estate & Dev. Co. v. Boone, Case 60 So. 3d 502 (Fla. 1st DCA Apr.21, 2011); Parker Family Trust I v. City of [*283] Jacksonville, 804 So. 2d 493 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001), review denied, 828 So. 2d 385 (Fla. 2002). Contrary to the majority view, the “law of the case” doctrine is not inapplicable becau…1 / 2
-
Aundra R. Akins v. State, 104 So. 3d 1173 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)…nt falls squarely within the purview of the rule of Graham in that he was sentenced to a term of life without parole for the nonhomicide crime of attempted first-degree murder committed when he was under the age of 18. See McCullum [*1175] v. State, 60 So. 3d 502, 503-04 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (finding that attempted second-degree murder is a nonhomicide offense under Graham), review denied, 67 So. 3d 1050 (Fla.2011); Manuel v. State, 48 So. 3d 94, 97 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (holding that attempted first-degree murd…
-
Rotta v. Rotta, 99 So. 3d 529 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)…Rotta, 34 So. 3d 107 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010). Contrary to the appellant’s argument, we find the decision under review not only in full accordance with, but mandatorily required, by our previous opinion. See, e.g., Pelican Real Estate & Dev. Co. v. Boone, 60 So. 3d 502 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011); Torres v. Jones, 652 So. 2d 893 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). Affirmed. LAGOA, J„ and SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge, concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Fla. Dep't OF Transp. v. Juliano, 801 So. 2d 101 (Fla. 2001)
- Arky v. Bowmar Instrument Corp., 537 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 1988)
- ST. Lucie Harvesting & Caretaking Corp. v. Vicente Cervantes, 664 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)
- Heild v. State, 13 So. 3d 528 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)
- Boone v. Pelican Real Est. & Dev. Co., Inc., 13 So. 3d 528 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)