IOWA NATIONAL MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, A CORPORATION, PETITIONER,
v.
EARLE S. LEGGETT AND T. U. GRAFF, RESPONDENTS

Fla. 1st DCA | 1958-09-04
No. A-313
STURGIS, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD, and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur., STURGIS, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD, and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.
107 So. 2d 134 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1958) Positive Treatment
Cited by 3 cases
Topics
Departure From Essential Requirements Of Law Writ Of Certiorari

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Departure From Essential Requirements Of Law cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Certiorari denied. See Iowa National Mutual Insurance Company v. Leggett, Fla., 97 So.2d 307.

STURGIS, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD, and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.

On Petition for Rehearing

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner seeks writ of certiorari to quash an order entered by the Circuit Court of Duval County sitting as an appellate court which affirmed a judgment in favor of respondent Leggett and against petitioner entered by the Civil Court of Record of Duval County.

From a review of the record and file in this cause it seems apparent that the order of affirmance now sought to be quashed was based upon the principles of law set forth in 4 Am.Jur. p. 128, p. 191; Cooley on Torts, Vol. 1, § 98, p. 239; Mercer v. Corbin, 117 Ind. 450, 20 N.E. 132, 3 L.R.A. 221; 5 C.J. 645; 6 C.J.S. Assault and Battery § 25, p. 829; 29 Am.Jur. 1143, p. 589; Butler Bros. v. American Fidelity Company, 120 Minn. 157, 139 N.W. 355, 44 L.R.A.,N.S., 609 ; 76 A.L.R. 145; 123 A.L.R. 974; Bachman v. Independence Indemnity Company, 112 Cal.App. 465, 297 P. 110, 298 P. 57. Petitioner has failed to clearly demonstrate that the Circuit Court, in applying the principles set forth in the above cited authorities, departed from the essential requirements of law. Our order denying certiorari is adhered to and the petition for rehearing is denied.

STURGIS, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD, and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.

Other
PER CURIAM.

On Petition for Rehearing

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner seeks writ of certiorari to quash an order entered by the Circuit Court of Duval County sitting as an appellate court which affirmed a judgment in favor of respondent Leggett and against petitioner entered by the Civil Court of Record of Duval County.

From a review of the record and file in this cause it seems apparent that the order of affirmance now sought to be quashed was based upon the principles of law set forth in 4 Am.Jur. p. 128, p. 191; Cooley on Torts, Vol. 1, § 98, p. 239; Mercer v. Corbin, 117 Ind. 450, 20 N.E. 132, 3 L.R.A. 221; 5 C.J. 645; 6 C.J.S. Assault and Battery § 25, p. 829; 29 Am.Jur. 1143, p. 589; Butler Bros. v. American Fidelity Company, 120 Minn. 157, 139 N.W. 355, 44 L.R.A.,N.S., 609 ; 76 A.L.R. 145; 123 A.L.R. 974; Bachman v. Independence Indemnity Company, 112 Cal.App. 465, 297 P. 110, 298 P. 57. Petitioner has failed to clearly demonstrate that the Circuit Court, in applying the principles set forth in the above cited authorities, departed from the essential requirements of law. Our order denying certiorari is adhered to and the petition for rehearing is denied.

STURGIS, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD, and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Horton v. Horton, 330 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)
    …970); Finston v. Finston, 160 Fla. 935, 37 So. 2d 423 (1948); Knabb v. Duner, 143 Fla. 92, 196 So. 456 (1940); Town of Boca Raton v. Moore, 122 Fla. 350, 165 So. 279 (1936); Sedell v. Sedell, 100 So. 2d 639 (Fla.App. 1st 1958); Strozier v. Strozier, 107 So. 2d 134 (Fla.App. 1st 1958); and Fowler v. Fowler, 112 So. 2d 411 (Fla.App. 1st 1959). A court has authority to modify a decree for “pure” alimony, meaning “nourishment” or “sustenance” or for support and maintenance in lieu of alimony, even where the decre…
  • Rogers v. Rogers, 175 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)
    …complete and jurisdiction was not retained for any purpose. The property rights became fixed by the final decree and were not subject to modification by the chancellor except upon a timely petition for rehearing. Strozier v. Strozier, Fla.App.1958, 107 So. 2d 134; Batteiger v. Batteiger, Fla.App. 1959, 109 So. 2d 602. The chancellor may have jurisdiction to enforce the decree, but not to modify it when the modification is unrelated to the enforcement. The decree appealed is reversed, and appellant’s applica…
  • Bazzano v. Bazzano, 175 So. 2d 801 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
    …which the court had reserved jurisdiction, nor was it within the ambit of any applicable statute, and cites as authority: Norton v. Norton, 131 Fla. 219, 179 So. 414; Mouyois v. Mouyois, Fla.1957, 97 So. 2d 718; Strozier v. Strozier, Fla.App. 1958, 107 So. 2d 134; Durden v. Durden, Fla.App. 1962, 137 So. 2d 29. Appellee accepts the limitation on jurisdiction which is urged as the basis of appellant’s position, but appellee urges that the order modifying the final decree was a proper exercise of the court’s…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw