BRETT FENSTER, 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 Fenster because it relied on Williams v. State, which the Supreme Court had itself quashed, and remanded for reconsideration in light of the Williams decision.
A lower court decision that relies on authority subsequently quashed by the Supreme Court must be quashed and remanded for reconsideration.
[1] A lower court decision that relies on authority subsequently quashed by the Supreme Court must be quashed and remanded for reconsideration in light of the corrected legal…
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 intelligenceFenster sought review of a Fourth District Court of Appeal decision that had cited Williams v. State as authority; the Williams decision was pending r…
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 Fenster v. State, 61 So.3d 465 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011), in which the Fourth District Court of Appeal cited as authority its decision in Williams v. State, 40 So.3d 72 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010), quashed, 123 So.3d 23 (Fla.2013). At the time the Fourth District issued its decision in Fenster, Williams 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 our disposition of Williams v. State, 123 So.3d 23 (Fla.2013), in which we ultimately quashed the Fourth District’s underlying Williams decision. We then issued an order directing the Respondent to show cause why this Court should not accept jurisdiction, summarily quash the *284Fourth District’s decision in Fenster, and remand for reconsideration in light of our decision in Williams.
Upon consideration of the State’s response and Fenster’s reply, we grant the petition for review, quash the Fourth District’s decision in Fenster, and remand this case to the Fourth District for further proceedings consistent with our decision in Williams.
It is so ordered.
POLSTON, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANADY, and PERRY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Jollie v. State, 405 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 1981)
- Amos Augustus Williams v. State, 40 So. 3d 72 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)
- Amos Augustus Williams v. State, 123 So. 3d 23 (Fla. 2013)
- Fenster v. State, 61 So. 3d 465 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)