CALVIN KOVENS, APPELLANT,
v.
SAM BLUESTONE AND RAY GOODMAN, 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 appellate court remanded the case to the trial court to clarify the basis for its summary judgment, specifically whether it was based on a construction of a specific article of the Florida Constitution. This action was taken because the original summary judgment order did not specify its grounds, and the parties argued different constitutional interpretations on appeal.
The court held that it could not determine the basis of the summary judgment from the record and therefore remanded the case for clarification.
“This appeal was taken from a summary judgment in favor of the appellee Minnie •Goodman.”
Identifies the nature of the appeal and the party who prevailed below.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant appealed a summary judgment entered in favor of the appellee. The summary judgment order itself did not specify the legal basis for its …
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.
This appeal was taken from a summary judgment in favor of the appellee Minnie •Goodman.
In oral argument before this court, and in the briefs of the respective parties, it was urged that the summary judgment resulted from the trial judge’s construction of Section 1, Article XI of the Florida Constitution, F.S.A. The summary judgment appealed makes no reference to the basis upon which it was rendered, except the usual ones implicit in summary judgments, i. e., lack of a genuine issue of material fact and that the prevailing party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
In view of the question raised, we remand this cause to the trial court for the entry of an order specifying whether or not the summary judgment now under appeal was entered pursuant to that court’s construction of Section 1, Article XI of the Florida Constitution. Upon the entry of such order, the clerk of the trial court is directed to forward a certified copy thereof to this court and to counsel for each of the parties hereto.
It is so ordered.
HORTON, C. J., and PEARSON, TILLMAN, and CARROLL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kovens v. Bluestone, 134 So. 2d 547 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)…. We conclude that what cannot be done by a plain promissory note cannot be done by a plain endorsement upon a promissory note. Affirmed. . After plaintiff’s appeal was lodged in this court, we remanded the cause (Kovens v. Bluestone, Fla.App.1961,132 So. 2d 341) to the trial court for the entry of an order specifying whether or not the summary judgment was entered pursuant to that court’s construction of the mentioned section of the Constitution of Florida. The trial court having certified that the summary…
-
Fla. Power Corp. v. Griffin, 150 So. 2d 270 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)…318; nor is it a case where the trial court misconceived the intent of the mandate and failed, after ample opportunity, to carry out the mandate of this court, as was the case in Sullivan v. Chase Federal Savings and Loan Association, Fla.App. 1961, 132 So. 2d 341, and 132 So. 2d 343. The decision of this court affirming the final judgment did not in any way deal with the question, now raised, of payment of interest on the judgment from the time of its entry, and therefore, our decision and mandate in no way…
-
Wood v. Manatee BAY Corp., 386 So. 2d 320 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)…iencies or omissions in the original judgment (Beach Resort Hotel Corp. v. Wieder, 83 So. 2d 863 (Fla.1955)) or to do anything other than that which would implement the judgment which we had affirmed. Sullivan v. Chase Federal Savings & Loan Ass’n., 132 So. 2d 341 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961). Applied to the facts at bench, those rules nullify the supplemental judgment. The only possible predicate for the statement in our earlier opinion, that the judgment did not affect the debt underlying the cancelled mortgage,2 wa…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence