IN RE ESTATE OF M. MAY ROBERTSON, DECEASED. JEAN ROBERTSON MOLANDER, PETITIONER,
v.
P. W. HARVEY, AS EXECUTOR OF THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF M. MAY ROBERTSON, DECEASED, RESPONDENT
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 vacated a District Court of Appeal's decision that dismissed an appeal as untimely. The Supreme Court found the dismissal conflicted with its own precedent regarding appeal deadlines, directing the lower appellate court to reinstate the appeal.
No, the District Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal as untimely. The Supreme Court found that its own precedent dictated a different interpretation of the appeal deadline, making the dismissal improper.
“The decision of the District Court of Appeal, First District, dated February 8, 1961, as amended by its decision dated the 4th day of April, 1961, in which it dismissed an appeal taken from a final judgment of the Probate Judge of Volusia County by Jane Robertson Molander because said appeal was taken more than thirty but less than sixty days after the date of the rendition thereof, is in direct conflict with the opinion of this Court in In re Wartman's Estate, Fla.1961, 128 So. 2d 600.”
This quote establishes the core issue: the conflict between the District Court's dismissal and prior Supreme Court precedent regarding appeal timeliness.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJean Robertson Molander appealed a final judgment from the Probate Judge of Volusia County. The District Court of Appeal dismissed her appeal because …
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 Conflict Of Decisions cases and more on FLexlaw
The decision of the District Court of Appeal, First District, dated February 8, 1961, as amended by its decision dated the 4th day of April, 1961, in which it dismissed an appeal taken from a final judgment of the Probate Judge of Volusia County by Jane Robertson Molander because said appeal was taken more than thirty but less than sixty days after the date of the rendition thereof, is in direct conflict with the opinion of this Court in In re Wartman’s Estate, Fla.1961, 128 So.2d 600. The latter decision was rendered by this Court subsequent to the date of the trial court judgment and the decision of the District Court. Also see Congregation Temple de Hirsch of Seattle v. Aronson, Fla.1961, 128 So.2d 585. In consideration of the foregoing it is ordered that the foregoing decisions of the District Court are hereby vacated and set aside with directions to reinstate said appeal and dispose of the same in due course as if said motion had never been made and granted.
It is so ordered.
THOMAS, C. J., TERRELL, HOBSON and DREW, JJ., and McLANE, Circuit Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (15 total)
-
State v. Jones, 204 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 1967)…each and that none are in conflict with the Gray and Clinton cases. In addition, compare Davis v. State, 90 Fla. 317, 105 So. 843, 844; Carlile v. State, 129 Fla. 860, 176 So. 862; Ard v. State, Fla. 1959, 108 So. 2d 39; Diecidue v. State, Fla.1961, 131 So. 2d 7; and King v. State, Fla.1962, 143 So. 2d 458. If one desires to pursue the subject further many cases will be found in an exhaustive annotation under the title “Comment or Argument by Court or Counsel that Prosecution Evidence is Uncontradicted as A…
-
Williams v. State, 143 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 1962)…leged to have been used at the Blue Grass Market. (3) For the reasons pointed out, there was merit to the contention that the trial judge’s attitude militated against a fair trial. Allen v. State, Fla.1952, 62 So. 2d 70; Diecidue v. State, Fla.1961, 131 So. 2d 7, and Leavine v. State, 109 Fla. 447, 147 So. 897. Other questions raised have been examined but are not discussed. Reversed for a new trial. ROBERTS, C. J., and TERRELL, DREW, THORNAL, O’CONNELL and HOBSON (Ret.), JJ., concur. THOMAS, J., agrees…
-
Grimm v. Prudence Mut. Cas. Co., 243 So. 2d 140 (Fla. 1971)…5, 23 So. 2d 572 (1945); Dowling v. Loftin, 72 So. 2d 283 (Fla.1954); General Ready-Mixed Concrete v. Wheeler, 55 So. 2d 331 (Fla.1951); Staff v. Soreno Hotel Co., 60 So. 2d 28 (Fla.1952); Martin v. Stone, 51 So. 2d 33 (Fla.1951); Diecidue v. State, 131 So. 2d 7 (Fla.1961). The District Court should have applied this rule in the present case. The instructions taken as a whole put the jury on notice that Grimm’s recovery was to be limited to his insurable interest in the vehicle. The decision of the Distric…
Previewing 3 of 15 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Congregation Temple de Hirsch v. Susan Joyce Aronson (Individually), 128 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 1961)
- In re Est. of George H. Wartman v. Wartman, 128 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 1961)