FLORIDA STATE TURNPIKE AUTHORITY, STATE ROAD DEPARTMENT OF FLORIDA AND DADE COUNTY, APPELLANTS,
v.
ANHOCO CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND THEATRE ASSOCIATES, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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 District Court of Appeal, Third District, issued this order conforming its prior judgment to the Florida Supreme Court's mandate following certiorari review. The court vacated portions of its November 1958 decision that conflicted with the Supreme Court's opinions and judgments issued in June and November 1959.
The District Court vacated all portions of its November 18, 1958 judgment that conflicted with or failed to conform to the Supreme Court's opinions and judgments dated June 10, 1959 and November 6, 1959. The Supreme Court's opinion and judgment was adopted as the District Court's own, except for portions previously withdrawn by the court's August 13, 1959 order on mandate.
“the cause was remanded with directions that the decision of this court be revised to conform to the views expressed in the judgments and opinions of the Supreme Court of Florida”
Establishes the Supreme Court's mandate requiring the District Court to modify its decision
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe underlying case involved the Florida State Turnpike Authority, State Road Department of Florida, and Dade County against ANHOCO Corporation and Th…
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 18th day of November, 1958 (107 So.2d 51) affirming in part and reversing in part the judgment of the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida in and for Dade County, in the above styled cause; and
Whereas, on review of this court’s judgment by petitions for certiorari, the Supreme Court of Florida, by its opinions and judgments filed June 10, 1959, and November 6, 1959, 116 So.2d 8 respectively, quashed a portion of this court’s judgment; and
Whereas, by mandate of the Supreme Court of Florida now lodged in this court, the cause was remanded with directions that the decision of this court be revised to conform to the views expressed in the judgments and opinions of the Supreme Court of Florida; and
Whereas, this court has heretofore, by order on mandate issued August 13, 1959, complied with and carried into effect that opinion and judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida dated June 10, 1959;
Now, Therefore, it is Ordered that the judgment and decision of this court, filed in this cause on November 18, 1958, insofar as it is in conflict with or fails to conform to the views expressed in the opinion and judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida, dated November 6, 1959, aforesaid, is withdrawn and vacated, and the said opinion and judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida is herewith made the opinion and; judgment of this court. The opinion and judgment of this court, except as withdrawn and vacated by its order of August 13, 1959 and as aforesaid, is adhered to; 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, CPIAS., JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ronad McALISTER v. Shaver, 633 So. 2d 494 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)…and visitation rights. Where a court fails to address such matters in the final judgment it is questionable whether such matters are finally adjudicated because they “might have been presented and determined in the first suit.” Reynolds v. Reynolds, 117 So. 2d 16, 20 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959). In the judgment of dissolution when the court ordered “sole parental responsibility” to the mother without addressing the visitation rights of the noncustodial father, it acted in contravention of section 61.13(2)(b)2.b, Fl…
-
Thomson McKINNON Sec., Inc. v. Kerrean Slater, 615 So. 2d 781 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…have rested on either of two grounds, only one of which goes to the merits; and that the doctrine will not be invoked where it will work an injustice. deCancino v. Eastern Airlines, Inc., 283 So. 2d 97, 98-99 (Fla.1973). Accord Reynolds v. Reynolds, 117 So. 2d 16, 20 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959) (in order for a defense of res judicata to prevail, the final judgment relied upon must reflect within its four corners that it was on the merits and is conclusive as to the second suit), cert. denied, 120 So. 2d 616 (Fla.196…
-
Abel v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n of Manatee Cnty., 199 So. 2d 295 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)…ommission. Judge Silvertooth’s adjudication that the contract of August 26, 1964 did [*298] not constitute a valid or enforcible contract as between Pacetti and First Federal did not bind Abel on his cross claim. Reynolds v. Reynolds, Fla.App.1960, 117 So. 2d 16; United States Gypsum Co. v. Columbia Cas. Co., 1936, 124 Fla. 633, 169 So. 532; Gray v. Gray, 1926, 91 Fla. 103, 107 So. 261. Both Pacetti and First Federal until October 15, 1964, considered they had a valid sales contract between them. Pacetti c…
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
- Fla. State Tpk. Auth. v. Anhoco Corp., 116 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 1959)
- Fla. State Tpk. Auth. v. Anhoco Corp., 107 So. 2d 51 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)