ROYAL CARRAWAY, APPELLANT,
v.
GUY REVELL, INDIVIDUALLY, AND DBA REVELL MOTOR COMPANY, AND ASSOCIATES DISCOUNT CORPORATION, AN INDIANA CORPORATION AUTHORIZED TO DO BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
This case involves an appeal that was initially affirmed by the District Court of Appeal, but then quashed by the Florida Supreme Court. The District Court of Appeal, following the Supreme Court's mandate, vacated its prior judgment and adopted the Supreme Court's opinion, reversing the lower court's decision.
The District Court of Appeal's prior judgment was incorrect. The Supreme Court's decision, which quashed the District Court's affirmation, is now the controlling judgment.
“Whereas, the judgment of this court was entered on the 26th day of March, 1959 (112 So. 2d 71) affirming the judgment of the Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit in and for Leon County, Florida, in the above styled cause; and Whereas, on review of this court's judgment, pursuant to its certificate that the question involved is one of great public interest, the Supreme Court of Florida, by its opinion and judgment filed November 25; 1959 (116 So. 2d 16) quashed this court's judgment; 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, including the initial affirmation by the District Court, the Supreme Court's review and quashing of that judgment, and the subsequent remand.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe District Court of Appeal had previously affirmed a judgment from the Circuit Court. However, the Florida Supreme Court reviewed this decision, fou…
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 26th day of March, 1959 (112 So.2d 71) affirming the judgment of the Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit in and for Leon County, Florida, in the above styled cause; and
Whereas, on review of this court’s judgment, pursuant to its certificate that the question involved is one of great public interest, the Supreme Court of Florida, by its opinion and judgment filed November 25; 1959 (116 So.2d 16) quashed this court’s judgment; 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 March 26, 1959, 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 judgment appealed from is therefore reversed and the caused remanded with directions that upon reconsideration in accordance with the principles set forth in the opinion of the Supreme Court of Florida, thereof, the trial court enter its final judgment. Cost shall be taxed in the Circuit Court under Rule 3.16, subd. b, Florida Appellate Rules, 31 F.S.A.
WIGGINTON, C. J., CARROLL, DONALD K., J., and THORNAL, Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (17 total)
-
Armas v. Metro. Dade Cnty., 429 So. 2d 59 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…favor cannot stand. The liability of the city is based upon the duty to maintain its streets and adjacent real property in a reasonably safe condition. E.g., Town of Palm Beach v. Hovey, 115 Fla. 644, 155 So. 808 (1934); City of Hialeah v. Revels, 123 So. 2d 400 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960), cert. denied, 129 So. 2d 141 (Fla.1961). There can be no doubt that this duty includes one to use reasonable care to cut back foliage which has created an obstruction to a motorist’s view. Town of Belleair v. Taylor, 425 So. 2d 6…
-
Cheney v. Dade Cnty., 353 So. 2d 623 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…onably safe condition and to warn persons using the streets of known dangerous conditions. Town of Palm Beach v. Hovey, 115 Fla. 644, 155 So. 808 (1934); Trumpe v. City of Coral Springs, 326 So. 2d 192 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); City of Hialeah v. Revels, 123 So. 2d 400 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960). The same policy reasons prompting recognition of such a duty apply with equal force to imposing a similar duty on the county to properly maintain its traffic control signals in the streets. There is no basis in reason or experien…
-
Welsh v. Metro. Dade Cnty., 366 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…onably safe condition and to warn persons using the streets of known dangerous conditions. Town of Palm Beach v. Hovey, 115 Fla. 644, 155 So. 808 (1934); Trumpe v. City of Coral Springs, 326 So. 2d 192 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); City of Hialeah v. Revels, 123 So. 2d 400 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960). We see no reason why this line of cases should not apply to a county as to post-waiver of sovereign immunity cases. Just as a municipality is responsible to a person who uses its streets to properly maintain its streets and to wa…
Previewing 3 of 17 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Royal Carraway v. Revell, 116 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 1959)
- Royal Carraway v. Revell, 112 So. 2d 71 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959)