UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLANT,
v.
E. B. HULLEY AND BESS M. HULLEY, HIS WIFE; H. P. EFFROSS AND DOROTHY EFFROSS, HIS WIFE; JAMES O. LEWIS; C. GLOW; LOUIS LACKEY AND JOSEPH KATZ, A CO-PARTNERSHIP D/B/A PASADENA MATERIAL CO.; HAROLD C. ANDERSON LUMBER CO., INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION; R. MALCOLM WHITWORTH, JR.; BURFORD DISTRIBUTING CO., A CORPORATION; ALBERT SHEROUSE; AND JOHN H. SQUIRES, APPELLEES
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 reconsidered its prior judgment affirming a lower court's decree, after the U.S. Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case. The Florida Supreme Court now remands the case back to the circuit court for further proceedings consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court's mandate.
Yes, the Florida Supreme Court must reconsider its prior affirmation and remand the case to the circuit court for further proceedings consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court's mandate.
“Said judgment was, on petition for writ of certiorari, reversed and remanded by the Supreme Court of the United States on authority of United States v. Security Trust & Savings Bank, 340 U.S. 47, 71 S.Ct. 111, 95 L.Ed. 53; United States v. Gilbert Associates, Inc., 345 U.S. 361, 73 S.Ct. 701, 97 L.Ed. 1071; United States v. City of New Britain, 347 U.S. 81, 74 S.Ct. 367, 98 L.Ed. 520; United States v. Acri, 348 U.S. 211, 75 S.Ct. 239, 99 L.Ed. 264; United States v. Liverpool & London & Globe Ins. Co., 348 U.S. 215, 75 S.Ct. 247, 99 L.Ed 268; United States v. Scovil, 348 U.S. 218, 75 S.Ct. 244, 99 L.Ed. 271; United States v. Colotta, 350 U.S. 808, 76 S.Ct. 82, 100 L.Ed 725; United States v. White Bear Brewing Co. Inc., 350 U.S. 1010, 76 S.Ct. 646, 100 L.Ed. 871; United States v. Vorreiter, 355 U.S. 15, 78 S.Ct. 19, 2 L.Ed.2d 23.”
Establishes the basis for the Florida Supreme Court's reconsideration: the U.S. Supreme Court's reversal and remand.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Florida Supreme Court had previously affirmed a circuit court's decree. Subsequently, the United States Supreme Court reversed this judgment and 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 Mandate Of The Supreme Court cases and more on FLexlaw
The judgment of this court was entered on April 16, 1958, affirming, on authority of United States v. Griffin-Moore Lumber Co., Inc., Fla., 62 So.2d 589, the decree of the Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit in and for Pinellas County, Florida, in the above styled cause. Said judgment was, on petition for writ of certiorari, reversed and remanded by the Supreme Court of the United States on authority of United States v. Security Trust & Savings Bank, 340 U.S. 47, 71 S.Ct. 111, 95 L.Ed. 53; United States v. Gilbert Associates, Inc., 345 U.S. 361, 73 S.Ct. 701, 97 L.Ed. 1071; United States v. City of New Britain, 347 U.S. 81, 74 S.Ct. 367, 98 L.Ed. 520; United States v. Acri, 348 U.S. 211, 75 S.Ct. 239, 99 L.Ed. 264; United States v. Liverpool & London & Globe Ins. Co., 348 U.S. 215, 75 S.Ct. 247, 99 L.Ed 268; United States v. Scovil, 348 U.S. 218, 75 S.Ct. 244, 99 L.Ed. 271; United States v. Colotta, 350 U.S. 808, 76 S.Ct. 82, 100 L.Ed 725; United States v. White Bear Brewing Co. Inc., 350 U.S. 1010, 76 S.Ct. 646, 100 L.Ed. 871; United States v. Vorreiter, 355 U.S. 15, 78 S.Ct. 19, 2 L.Ed.2d 23.
It is, therefore, ordered that the judgment of this court in said cause be, and is now, reconsidered and said cause hereby remanded to the Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit in and for Pinellas County for further proceedings consistent with the laws of the State of Florida and the mandate and opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States, issued in this case.
THOMAS, HOBSON, THORNAL and O’CONNELL, JJ., concur.
TERRELL, C. J., dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Weissman, 135 So. 2d 235 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)…U.S. 808, 100 L.Ed. 725, 76 S.Ct. 82, including one decision applying specifically to the State of Florida, United States v. Hulley, 358 U.S. 66, 3 L.Ed.2d 106, 79 S.Ct. 117. The Florida decisions on the same case are Fla., 102 So. 2d 599, and Fla., 111 So. 2d 38. Federal Court decisions specifically holding that a statutory landlord’s lien for rent was not a specific and perfected lien as a matter of federal law for the purpose of determining priority with a federal lien are: United States v. Waddill Co.,…
Authorities Cited (12 total)
- United States v. City OF NEW Britain, 347 U.S. 81 (U.S. 1954)
- United States v. Sec. Tr. & Sav. Bank, 340 U.S. 47 (U.S. 1950)
- United States v. Gilbert Assocs., Inc., 345 U.S. 361 (U.S. 1953)
- United States v. Acri, 348 U.S. 211 (U.S. 1955)
- United States v. Liverpool & London & Globe Ins. Co., Ltd., 348 U.S. 215 (U.S. 1955)
- United States v. Scovil, 348 U.S. 218 (U.S. 1955)
- United States v. White Bear Brewing Co., Inc., 350 U.S. 1010 (U.S. 1956)
- Gregory v. United States, 350 U.S. 808 (U.S. 1955)
- Block v. Block, 350 U.S. 808 (U.S. 1955)
- United States v. Griffin-Moore Lumber Co., Inc, 62 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 1953)