JOSEPHINE ALFORD, PETITIONER,
v.
ROBERT F. NUNEZ, SR., ET AL., RESPONDENTS
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 authorized Josephine Alford to continue prosecution of a bill of review seeking to set aside three decrees for fraud in a case involving Grable v. Nunez. The Court held that because the decrees were based on a Supreme Court mandate, permission from the Supreme Court was required before challenging them.
The Supreme Court authorized Alford to continue prosecution of the bill of review case, holding that because the decrees under attack are based on a mandate of the Supreme Court, they have become the Court's decrees and consequently require Supreme Court permission to challenge them. The Court directed the Circuit Court to entertain and dispose of the cause equitably under the pleadings and proof submitted.
“Because these decrees under attack are based on a mandate of this Court, they have become our decrees; consequently, it is necessary to secure the permission of the Supreme Court to challenge them.”
Establishes the core holding that decrees based on Supreme Court mandate require Supreme Court permission to challenge via bill of review
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAlford filed an amended complaint (bill in the nature of a bill of review) seeking to set aside three decrees entered in the Circuit Court of Hillsbor…
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 Bill In The Nature Of A Bill Of Review cases and more on FLexlaw
This case is before this Court on the petition of Josephine Alford, who prays that we enter an order authorizing her to continue the prosecution of Case No. 106,875-C now on file in the Circuit Court of Hillsborough County.
The petitioner filed her amended complaint, a bill in the nature of a bill of review seeking to set aside for fraud three decrees entered by the Circuit Court of Hillsborough County in the case of J. A. M. Grable, Jr., et al. v. Robert F. Nunez, Sr., et al. (No. 83712-C).
Motions to dismiss were granted on the ground that.a record of the original proceedings relating to the decrees attacked were not made a part of the amended complaint.
An interlocutory appeal from the order granting the dismissal was taken to the District Court of Appeal, 2nd District, which affirmed the order dismissing the amended complaint with leave to amend.1
The District Court of Appeal was of the further opinion that since an appeal had been taken previously in the J. A. M. Grable case,2 that the bill in the nature of a bill of review could only be filed after permission from the Supreme Court had been obtained.
The petitioner thereafter filed a second amended complaint in Case No. 106,875-C to which she attached certain exhibits in an attempt to comply with the directives of the Circuit Court and the District Court of Appeal. After filing the above mentioned second amended complaint arid exhibits, the petitioner petitioned this Court for permission to continue the prosecution of said case.
Because these decrees under attack are based on a mandate of this Court, they have become our decrees; consequently, it is necessary to secure the permission of the Supreme Court to challenge them.3
On consideration of the petition lodged herein, it is therefore ordered that the petitioner is authorized to continue prosecution of said cause No. 106,875-C, and the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit of the State of Florida in and for Hillsborough County is hereby directed to entertain said cause and to dispose of the same in an equitable manner under the pleadings and proof which have been or shall be submitted.
TERRELL, C. J., and THOMAS, THORNAL and O’CONNELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nunez v. Alford, 117 So. 2d 208 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960)…urt of Florida to file such a bill. Pursuant to this expression a second amended complaint with exhibits was filed, and a petition to the Supreme Court for permission to proceed was made. Permission to proceed was granted. Alford v. Nunez, Fla.1959, 111 So. 2d 425. At the time of oral argument before the bar of this court, counsel for the respective parties were interrogated whether this court should assume jurisdiction to entertain this appeal in view of the principle laid down in the case of Armenian Hotel…
-
State of Fla. ex rel. Cent. & S. Fla. Flood Control Dist. v. The Honorable Robert H. Anderson, 157 So. 2d 140 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)…1.38, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, on July 1, 1962,2 it was necessary to secure the permission of the appellate court whose judgment was sought to be reviewed before filing the bill in the nature of a bill of review. Alford v. Nunez, Fla.1959, 111 So. 2d 425. Compare Deauville Realty Co. v. Tobin, Fla.App.1960, 120 So,2d 198. The question then is whether the amendment of Rule 1.38 eliminates the long recognized rule that when a judgment has been appealed and reversed or affirmed, the subsequent judgment…
-
State of Fla. ex rel. THE Fla. BAR v. Ellis Rubin, 142 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 1962)…uct prescribed by the Code of Ethics. Respondent’s testimony reflects his recognition of the error of his action in approving Rosenberg’s conduct. The judgment of the Board of Governors is supported by State ex rel. Florida Bar v. Everett, Fla.1959, 111 So. 2d 425. It should be said at the outset that the courts uniformly hold that disciplinary or disbarment proceedings are not for the purpose of punishment for any malfeasance or dereliction of duty but are solely for the purpose of purging the roll of legal…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Grable v. Nunez, 64 So. 2d 154 (Fla. 1953)