MARINE EXHIBITION CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
MAURICE R. HARRISON ET AL., APPELLEES

Fla. | 1961-12-13
No. 31182
ROBERTS, C. J., and TERRELL, THOMAS, THORNAL and O’CONNELL, JJ., concur.
135 So. 2d 713 Florida Supreme Court (1961)

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 Supreme Court remanded a case to the circuit court to rule on the constitutionality of a statute that was raised but not decided in the lower court. The Supreme Court deferred its own jurisdiction until the constitutionality issue was resolved.


Holding

The Supreme Court found that the constitutionality of the statute was raised but not ruled upon by the lower court. Therefore, the case must be remanded for the lower court to determine the constitutionality issue.


Key Quotes

“In this case the appellant attempts to invoke the jurisdiction of this court because by motion to dismiss the constitutionality of Section 84.05(11) was assailed, and it is insisted that the question was also presented at the time the court considered the motion for summary final decree.”

Establishes the basis for the appeal and the issues raised in the lower court.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

The appellant challenged the constitutionality of a statute, Section 84.05(11), through a motion to dismiss and during consideration of a motion for s…

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.

In this case the appellant attempts to invoke the jurisdiction of this court because by motion to dismiss the constitutionality of Section 84.05(11) was assailed, and it is insisted that the question was also presented at the time the court considered the motion for summary final decree.

In his order on the motions to dismiss,, the chancellor recited that the constitutionality of the law “was raised but the Court" reserves ruling on this issue until final: hearing.” Nevertheless the final decree: contained no ruling on the validity of the' law.

Without acting on the jurisdiction, we remand the cause to the circuit court for the purpose of determining the question of constitutionality which was apparently overlooked. Upon delivery to this court of a certified copy of the order eventually entered, this court will determine the matter of jurisdiction and either proceed then to decide the merits or transfer the cause to the appropriate District Court of Appeal.

ROBERTS, C. J., and TERRELL, THOMAS, THORNAL and O’CONNELL, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw