MARION A. JAMES AND DONALD V. JAMES, HER HUSBAND, APPELLANTS,
v.
EUNIA D. KEENE AND JOHN B. KEENE, 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 a procedural maneuver where the Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District, vacated its prior judgment affirming a lower court decision. This action was taken after the Florida Supreme Court quashed the appellate court's judgment, directing the appellate court to enter a new judgment consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion.
The District Court of Appeal must vacate its prior judgment, adopt the Supreme Court's opinion and judgment as its own, reverse the circuit court's judgment, and remand the case for a new trial.
“Whereas, on review of this court's judgment, by certiorari, the Supreme Court of Florida, by its opinion and judgment filed September 20, 1961, 133 So. 2d 297, quashed this court's judgment of affirmance; and Whereas, by the mandate of the Supreme Court of Florida, dated October 17, 1961, now lodged in this court, the cause was remanded with directions to enter a judgment consistent with the said judgment and opinion of the Supreme Court of Florida;”
This quote explains the procedural posture of the case, detailing the Supreme Court's action and its directive to the District Court.
Previewing 1 of 2 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 by c…
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 Remand For New Trial cases and more on FLexlaw
Whereas, the opinion and judgment of this court was entered on the 9th day of June, 1960, 121 So.2d 186, affirming the judgment of the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Dade County, Florida, in the above styled cause; and
Whereas, on review of this court’s judgment, by certiorari, the Supreme Court of Florida, by its opinion and judgment filed September 20, 1961, 133 So.2d 297, quashed this court’s judgment of affirmance; and
Whereas, by the mandate of the Supreme Court of Florida, dated October 17, 1961, now lodged in this court, the cause was remanded with directions to enter a judgment consistent with the said judgment and opinion of the Supreme Court of Florida;
Therefore, it is ordered that the mandate of this court, issued in this cause on June 30, 1960, is withdrawn, the judgment of this court filed June 9, 1960, is vacated, the opinion and judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida is herewith made the opinion and judgment of this court, and the judgment of the circuit court appealed from in this cause is reversed and the cause is remanded for new trial. Costs allowed shall be taxed in the circuit court (Rule 3.16, subd. b, Florida Appellate Rules, 31 F.S.A.).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Boyles v. Atl. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n OF Fort Lauderdale, 201 So. 2d 909 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967)…but there was a general prayer for relief which would be sufficient to permit the chancellor, in his discretion, to render a deficiency decree if an appropriate motion therefor was made. See: Kraus v. Liberty School of Aviation, Inc., Fla.App.1961, 133 So. 2d 571; Rubin v. Kapell, Fla. App.1958, 105 So. 2d 28; Coffrin v. Sayles, [*911] 1937, 128 Fla. 622, 175 So. 236. The remaining point raised on appeal is without merit. Affirmed. ANDREWS and CROSS, JJ., and LEAVENGOOD, C. RICHARD, Associate Judge, concur…
Authorities Cited
- Marlon A. James and Donald v. James, 133 So. 2d 297 (Fla. 1961)
- Marion A. James and Donald v. James, 121 So. 2d 186 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)