BERT SMITH, APPELLANT,
v.
J. TURNER BUTLER AND WILLIAM A. HALLOWES, III, AS TRUSTEES OF PROPERTY OF FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY COMPANY, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEES

Fla. 3d DCA | 1960-02-25
No. 59-384
HORTON, C. J., and PEARSON and CARROLL, CHAS., JJ., concur.
118 So. 2d 237 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1960) Positive Treatment
Cited by 3 cases

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.

Synopsis

The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed a trial court's judgment directing a verdict for the defendants in a Federal Employers' Liability Act case. The appeal was primarily intended to create a record for review by the U.S. Supreme Court, based on the appellate court's prior decision in the same case.

Holding

No, the trial court did not err in directing a verdict for the defendants, as it correctly followed the appellate court's prior decision.

Key Quotes

“The judgment of the trial court is affirmed upon the authority of Butler v. Smith, supra.”

This quote establishes the basis for the appellate court's decision to affirm the lower court's ruling.

Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence
Facts & Procedural History

The plaintiff sued under the Federal Employers' Liability Act, alleging the railroad improperly administered a field test. Following a prior appeal an…

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.

Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

This cause appeared before this court upon a prior appeal. See Butler v. Smith, Fla.App.1958, 104 So.2d 868. Upon the return of the cause to the trial court pursuant to our mandate, the plaintiff elected to stand exclusively upon his claim, under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, 45 U.S.C.A. § 51 et seq., that the railroad had no right to give the field test. The trial court entered judgment under authority of our prior opinion in this case. The plaintiff now appeals from this judgment. The only assignment of error presented is that the court erred in directing a verdict for the defendants. Appellant’s brief recites “The sole purpose of this appeal is to obtain a record on which this court’s prior decision in Butler v. Smith, Fla.App.1958, 104 So.2d 868, can be reviewed by the Supreme Court of the United States.”

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed upon the authority of Butler v. Smith, supra.

Affirmed.

HORTON, C. J., and PEARSON and CARROLL, CHAS., JJ., concur.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • The Travelers Ins. Co. v. Davis, 371 So. 2d 702 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
    …the invalidity of the service of process by clear and convincing evidence before the motion to quash could be granted. Livingston v. Fein, 359 So. 2d 25 (Fla.3d DCA 1978); Winky’s Inc. v. Francis, 229 So. 2d 903 (Fla.3d DCA 1969); Rumpf v. Freedman, 118 So. 2d 237 (Fla.3d DCA 1960); Mitchell v. Brown, 114 So. 2d 178 (Fla.1st DCA 1959); rev’d on other grounds, 119 So. 2d 385 (Fla.1960). To insure adequate consideration of the motion, an evidentiary hearing is required in this instance. The order quashing serv…
  • In re The Marriage OF Maurice W. Strauser, 297 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)
    …e opinion that the evidence presented on the jurisdiction issue was inconclusive and therefore insufficient to enable the trial court to make a just determination of said issue. See McIntosh v. Wibbeler, 106 So. 2d 195 (Fla.1958); Rumpf v. Freedman, 118 So. 2d 237 (Fla.App.1960); Black v. Black, 227 So. 2d 53 (Fla.App.1969). Accordingly, the trial court’s order denying appellant’s motion to vacate default and final judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for the taking of testimony on the jurisdiction is…
  • Smith v. Butler, 366 U.S. 161 (U.S. 1961)
    …ent to the District Court of Appeal the second time with this gloss of the trial judge’s interpretation of that Court’s earlier opinion. Therefore, when the District Court of Appeal, per curiam, affirmed “upon the authority” of its previous opinion, 118 So. 2d 237, the affirmance sustained the trial judge’s interpretation of the reversal as having rested, not on the ground that the Railway Labor Act precluded the petitioner’s claim under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, but on the ground that the evidenc…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw