CELLA L. KOSCH, APPELLANT,
v.
SIDNEY KOSCH, 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.
This case involves a procedural maneuver where the appellate court, following a mandate from the Florida Supreme Court, withdrew and vacated its prior judgment affirming a lower court's decision. The appellate court then reversed the lower court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.
The appellate court must withdraw and vacate its prior judgment of affirmance and reverse the lower court's judgment, remanding the case for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion.
“Whereas, the judgment of this court was entered on the 20th day of November, 1958 (Fla.App., 106 So. 2d 600) affirming the judgment of the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Dade County, Florida, in the above styled cause; and Whereas, on review of this court's judgment, by certiorari, the Supreme Court of Florida, by its opinion and judgment filed July 10, 1959 (Fla., 113 So. 2d 547) quashed this court's judgment of affirmance; and Whereas, by the mandate of the Supreme Court of Florida now lodged in this court the cause was remanded with directions to enter an order consistent with the said judgment and opinion of the Supreme Court of Florida;”
This quote outlines the procedural history and the directive from the Supreme Court that necessitated the current action by the appellate court.
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 District Court of Appeal had previously affirmed a judgment from the Circuit Court. However, the Florida Supreme Court quashed this affirm…
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
Whereas, the judgment of this court was entered on the 20th day of November, 1958 (Fla.App., 106 So.2d 600) affirming the judgment of the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Dade County, Florida, in the above styled cause; and
Whereas, on review of this court’s judgment, by certiorari, the Supreme Court of Florida, by its opinion and judgment filed July 10, 1959 (Fla., 113 So.2d 547) quashed this court’s judgment of affirmance; and
Whereas, by the mandate of the Supreme Court of Florida now lodged in this court the cause was remanded with directions to enter an order consistent with the said judgment and opinion of the Supreme Court of Florida;
Therefore, it is ordered that the judgment and decision of this court, filed in this cause on November 20, 1958, is withdrawn and vacated, and the said judgment of the circuit court appealed from in this cause is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings according to law and consistent with the opinion and judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida aforesaid; costs allowed shall be taxed in the Circuit Court (Rule 3.16, subd. b, Florida Appellate Rules, 31 F.S.A.).
HORTON, C. J., and PEARSON and CARROLL, CHAS., JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Hightower v. Bigoney, 156 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 1963)…this cause to the law side of the court for jury trial.” [Citing Rule 1.39, 1954 R.C.P., 30 F.S.A.] The following cases follow this line: Ganaway v. Henderson, Fla.App.1958, 103 So. 2d 693; Jones-Mahoney Corp. v. C. A. Fielland, Inc., Fla.App.1959, 114 So. 2d 18. Counterclaims were filed in these cases, ■compulsory in one and “permissive” in the •other. Right to jury trial was waived in the first case and was not requested in the other. The chancellor recognized the right to jury trial in both cases but dis…
-
Blue v. Weinstein, 381 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…rd with the rule followed in California. White Lighting Co. v. Wolfson, 68 Cal.2d 336, 438 P. 2d 345, 352, 66 Cal.Rptr. 697 (1968). In addition, our review of Nash v. Walker, 78 So. 2d 685 (Fla.1955), and Jones-Mahoney Corp. v. C. A. Fielland, Inc., 114 So. 2d 18, 20 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959), convinces us that the Florida Supreme Court has given its tacit, although not explicit, approval to the bringing of such an abuse of process action as a counterclaim. A different rule properly prevails with reference to the…
-
State of Fla. ex rel. Sam Rosenfeld v. Honorable Tyrie A. Boyer, 145 So. 2d 547 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962)…dry, 159 Fla. 210, 31 So. 2d 254 (1947). . Platt v. Kenco Chemical Co., 132 So. 2d 27 (Fla.App.3d 1961). . Pesce v. Linaido, 123 So. 2d 747 (Fla.App.3d 1960); Rules 1.11(b) and 1.13 (1), F.R.C.P. . See Jones-Mahoney Corp. v. C. A. Fielland, Inc., 114 So. 2d 18 (Fla.App.2d 1959).…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Kosch v. Kosch, 113 So. 2d 547 (Fla. 1959)
- Kosch v. Kosch, 106 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)