MOHAWK, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, ANSAN, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND CANOGA, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANTS,
v.
JOE COHEN AND JULIUS JAY PERIMUTTER, 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 history where the Florida Supreme Court quashed a prior judgment by the District Court of Appeal, directing the District Court to reinstate the original circuit court judgment. The District Court of Appeal then vacated its own prior judgment and adopted the Supreme Court's ruling.
The District Court of Appeal must vacate its previous judgment and adopt the Supreme Court's opinion and judgment as its own. The cause must then be remanded to the circuit court for reinstatement of the original judgment.
“Whereas, the judgment of this court was entered on the 5th day of January, 1961 (125 So. 2d 909) reversing 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 January 24, 1962 (137 So. 2d 222) quashed this court's judgment of reversal; and Whereas, by the mandate of the Supreme Court of Florida dated February 19, 1962, now lodged in this court the cause was remanded with directions to remand the cause to the circuit court for reinstatement of its judgment in favor of the plaintiffs.”
Describes the procedural history and the Supreme Court's directive.
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 reversed a judgment from the Circuit Court. The Supreme Court of Florida, upon review by certiorari, quash…
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 Mandate Of The Supreme Court cases and more on FLexlaw
Whereas, the judgment of this court was entered on the 5th day of January, 1961 (125 So.2d 909) reversing 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 January 24, 1962 (137 So.2d 222) quashed this court’s judgment of reversal; and
Whereas, by the mandate of the Supreme Court of Florida dated February 19, 1962, now lodged in this court the cause was remanded with directions to remand the cause to the circuit court for reinstatement of its judgment in favor of the plaintiffs.
Therefore, it is ordered that the mandate of this court issued in this cause on February 1, 1961, is withdrawn, the judgment and decision of this court, filed in this cause on January 5, 1961, is vacated, and the said opinion and judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida, a copy of which is attached hereto, is herewith made the opinion and judgment of this court, and the cause is remanded to the circuit court for reinstatement of its judgment in favor of the plaintiffs; costs allowed shall be taxed in the circuit court (Rule 3.16, subd. b, F.A.R., 31 F.S.A.).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Faulkner v. Allstate Ins. Co. & Robert J. Leary, 333 So. 2d 488 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)…the threshold requirements, the father’s claim for loss of services, being derivative in nature, was barred. Similarly, in another case somewhat analogous, but prior to no-fault, this court held in Dobbins v. S. A. F. Farms, Inc., Fla.App.2d, 1962, 137 So. 2d 838, that a husband could not claim for loss of consortium against an employer who was liable to the wife for Workmen’s Compensation. In neither of the foregoing cases, however, was it urged, as it is here, that the statutes involved were given unconst…
Authorities Cited
- Cohen v. Mohawk, Inc., 137 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 1962)
- Mohawk, Inc. v. Cohen, 125 So. 2d 909 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)