SAX ENTERPRISES, INC., TRADING AS SAXONY HOTEL, APPELLANT,
v.
DAVID AND DASH, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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.
Sax Enterprises appealed a summary judgment entered after remand from a prior appeal. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the prior judgment on an estoppel theory and remanded for new trial, but the trial court entered summary judgment on a different issue (agency/employment relationships) without holding the full trial ordered on remand. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the remand order implicitly required a full trial of all unresolved factual issues.
The trial court erred in entering summary judgment. The Supreme Court's prior remand order for a 'new trial' implicitly required that all unresolved factual issues, including the agency/employment relationships, be tried by the trier of facts, not decided summarily. Summary judgment was improper where genuine issues of fact existed.
“if, however, a particular holding is implicit in the decision rendered, then it is no longer open for discussion or consideration”
Establishes that implicit holdings in appellate decisions are binding and limit further proceedings on remand
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSax Enterprises sued David and Dash, Inc. to recover labor costs allegedly paid on defendant's behalf for converting materials into bedspreads. The be…
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 Issue Of Fact cases and more on FLexlaw
This appeal is before the court on transfer from the Third District Court of Appeal in accordance with Florida Appellate Rule 2.1, subd. a(5) (d), 31 F.S.A., and the decision of this court in Armenian Hotel Owners, Inc., v. Kulhanjian, Fla.1957, 96 So.2d 896.
On the prior appeal this court reversed a money judgment in favor of plaintiff-appellee and remanded the cause for a new trial. Sax Enterprises, Inc., v. David & Dash, Inc., Fla.1957, 92 So.2d 421. The plaintiff’s suit had for its principal purpose the recovery of an amount allegedly paid by plaintiff to a third person (“Marcus” hereafter) at and for defendant’s request and benefit, representing the cost of labor performed by Marcus in converting materials supplied by plaintiff into bedspreads for defendant. The trial judge entered judgment in favor of plaintiff for the full amount of the labor charge made by Marcus against plaintiff and allegedly paid by plaintiff to Marcus, despite the fact that the evidence showed that the bedspreads did not properly fit the beds in the defendant’s hotel. This he did on the theory that by accepting and using the bedspreads the defendant was estopped to refuse to pay the “purchase price” thereof. As noted, this court reversed and remanded for a new trial.
After the going down of the mandate, the plaintiff-appellee moved for a summary judgment on the basis of an issue relating to the employment or agency relationships among plaintiff, defendant and Marcus. This issue was not clearly drawn by the pleadings, if at all, although the record shows that evidence relevant to such issue was adduced at the trial; however, the trial judge did not decide it because a ruling thereon was unnecessary in view of his ruling as to the impact of the doctrine of estoppel. Upon the basis of such motion and without further ado, the trial judge entered summary judgment in plaintiff’s favor in the same amount as that awarded by the prior judgment. This ap>-peal by defendant followed.
It might be noted that piecemeal review of cases is not favored by an appellate court, and care should be exercised by trial judges to avoid, so far as possible, the necessity for successive appeals. It is true, nonetheless, as contended by plaintiff-appellee, that a judgment of reversal is not necessarily an adjudication by the appellate court of any other than the questions in terms discussed and decided, see Florida East Coast R. Co. v. Geiger, 1914, 66 Fla. 582, 64 So. 238; if, however, a particular holding is implicit in the decision rendered, then it is no longer open for discussion or consideration. Sanders v. State ex rel. D’Alemberte, 1921, 82 Fla. 498, 90 So. 455.
On the former appeal it was apparent to this court that a genuine issue of fact existed with respect to the subject-matter of plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment; and in directing the re-trial of the cause, rather than remanding “for further proceedings”, it was implicit that this issue, along with the issue of damages and other unresolved issues of fact, should be *614re-tried by the trier of the facts, after an appropriate amendment of the pleadings if deemed necessary.
Finding no justification in fact or in law, see the Restatement, Agency, §§ 1, 405, 406, for the entry of the judgment here reviewed, it is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with the opinions expressed herein and in our former opinion, 92 So.2d 421.
Reversed and remanded.
TERRELL, C. J., and ROBERTS, DREW, THORNAL and O'CONNELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (16 total)
-
S. L. T. Warehouse Co. v. Wilmott Webb, 304 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 1974)…of the District Court of Appeal as above expressed. Appellate courts do not favor piecemeal review of a cause and trial courts should exercise care to avoid, so far as possible, the necessity for successive appeals. Sax Enterprises v. David & Dash, 107 So. 2d 612 (Fla.1958); Florida Real Estate Commission v. Harris, 134 So. 2d 785 (Fla.1961). Piecemeal appeals will not be permitted where claims are interrelated and involve the same transaction and the same parties remain in the suit. However, it may occur th…
-
McGURN v. Scott, 596 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 1992)…ne.” Id. at 539. [*1044] Further, the “piecemeal review of cases is not favored by an appellate court, and care should be exercised by trial judges to avoid, so far as possible, the necessity for successive appeals.” Sax Enterprises v. David & Dash, 107 So. 2d 612, 613 (Fla.1958). However, this Court has previously held that “costs may be adjudicated after final judgment, after the expiration of the appeal period, during the pendency of an appeal, and even after the appeal has been concluded.” Roberts v. Ask…
-
Kaynan Fitchner v. Lifesouth Cmty. Blood Ctrs., Inc., 88 So. 3d 269 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)…nherent in the holding that notice is necessary under the law. Contentions like this one, which are implicit or subsumed in a prior holding, are likewise encompassed in the effect of the “law of the case.” See Sax Enters. Inc. v. David & Dash, Inc., 107 So. 2d 612, 613 (Fla.1958) (“if ... a particular holding is implicit in the decision rendered, then it is no longer open for discussion or consideration [e.s.].”); S/D Enters., Inc. v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A., 375 So. 2d 1109, 1111 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) (“A pr…
Previewing 3 of 16 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co. v. Geiger, 66 Fla. 582 (Fla. 1914)
- Armenian Hotel Owners, Inc., 96 So. 2d 896 (Fla. 1957)
- Sanders v. State ex rel. J. Herron D'Alemberte, 82 Fla. 498 (Fla. 1921)
- Sellers v. State (Miss. 1921)
- SAX Enters., Inc. v. David & Dash, Inc., 92 So. 2d 421 (Fla. 1957)