STATE
v.
COUNTY OF SARASOTA ET AL.
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 reversed a lower court's decree based on the appellee's confession of errors. The case was remanded with instructions to allow the filing of amended petitions consistent with prior court rulings.
Yes, the decree is reversed on the authority of the confession of errors. The cause is remanded with directions to permit the filing of amended and supplemental petitions.
“Upon consideration of the confession of errors filed in this cause by the appellee, notice of which filing has been duly given to the appellant, as' appears of record, it is thereupon.”
Establishes the basis for the court's review and decision.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellee filed a confession of errors in this appeal. The appellant was duly notified of this filing. The case involved validation proceedings ini…
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.
Upon consideration of the confession of errors filed in this cause by the appellee, notice of which filing has been duly given to the appellant, as' appears of record, it is thereupon.
Considered, ordered and adjudged by this Court that the decree appealed from in this cause be and the same is hereby *37reversed on the authority of the confession of errors filed by the appellee, and that the cause be remanded to the Circuit Court of Sarasota County, Florida, with directions to said Circuit Court to permit the filing of such amended and supplemental petition on the part of Sarasota County, Florida, as may be conformable to the opinions and judgments of this Court in the following cases decided by this' Court at its present term, viz.: County of Bay v. State of Florida, 116 Fla. 656, 157 Sou. Rep. 1, opinion filed September 26, 1934, and State of Florida v. Citrus County, 116 Fla. 676, 157 Sou. Rep. 4, opinion filed September 27, 1934, to the end that said Circuit Court of Sarasota County, upon the filing of such amended and supplemental petition to conform to the opinions of this Court hereinabove cited, may proceed anew with said validation proceedings to a proper judgment or decree in the premises not inconsistent with the opinions and judgments of this Court in the cases of County of Bay v. State of Florida, supra, and State of Florida v. Citrus County, supra.
Reversed on confession of errors and remanded.
Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Terrell and Brown, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Cnty. of Sarasota Case No. 1. (Road & Bridge Refunding Bonds, 118 Fla. 629 (Fla. 1935)…m earlier decrees, but upon such previous consideration the decrees appealed from were reversed- by consent of appellants upon a confession of error. See State v. Sarasota County, 117 Fla. 34, 157 Sou. Rep. 21; State v. Sarasota County, 117 Fla. 36, 157 Sou. Rep. 22. [*633] Prior to the entry of the earlier decrees, the Circuit Court had, by appropriate proceedings in accordance with the statute, admittedly acquired jurisdiction of the subject matter of the suit, namely the controversy concerning the validity v…
-
Feibelman v. Knott, 117 Fla. 243 (Fla. 1934)…mpanion case of William H. Kelly, as Commissioner, v. W. V. Knott, as State Treasurer and ex-officio Insurance Commissioner, et al., decided on the 4th day of August, 1934, rehearing denied on the 3rd day of November, 1934, reported in 116 Fla. 362, 157 Sou. Rep. 22, it is now ordered and adjudged that the decree appealed from herein be and the same is hereby affirmed on the authority of the opinion filed in Kelly v. Knott, supra. The affirmance of the decree appealed from, however, shall be without prejudice…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Cnty. of Citrus, 116 Fla. 676 (Fla. 1934)
- Bay Cnty. v. State, 116 Fla. 656 (Fla. 1934)