JOHN SCOTT MCBURNETTE, A MINOR, BY HIS FATHER AND NEXT FRIEND, JOHN O. MCBURNETTE, AND JOHN O. MCBURNETTE, INDIVIDUALLY, APPELLANTS,
v.
PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT CORP., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND STELBER CYCLE CORPORATION, A NEW YORK CORPORATION, APPELLEES

Fla. 3d DCA | 1962-03-05
No. 60-232
Before PEARSON, TILLMAN, C. J., and CARROLL, J., and LOPEZ, AQUILINO, Jr., Associate Judge.
138 So. 2d 372 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1962)

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

This case involves a prior judgment by the appellate court that was quashed by the Florida Supreme Court. The appellate court is now issuing a new judgment consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion, which found the complaint stated a cause of action on both negligence and warranty theories.


Holding

The complaint stated a cause of action against Playground Equipment Corp. on both negligence and warranty theories.


Key Quotes

“On certiorari the Supreme Court of Florida quashed our judgment on this appeal "to the extent that it is inconsistent with the conclusions in this [the Supreme Court's] opinion."”

Establishes that the Supreme Court reviewed and partially overturned the appellate court's prior decision.

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 appellate court had previously reversed a trial court's dismissal of a complaint against Playground Equipment Corp., finding a cause of action for…

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.

On certiorari the Supreme Court of Florida quashed our judgment on this appeal1 “to the extent that it is inconsistent with the conclusions in this [the Supreme Court’s] opinion.” The cause was remanded to this court for further proceedings “in accordance herewith”, that is, in accordance with the Supreme Court’s opinion and judgment.2 The mandate of that court has now been filed herein.

Our judgment on the appeal reversed an order of the trial court which had dismissed the complaint as to one of the defendants, Playground Equipment Corp. We held the complaint stated a cause of action against that defendant based on negligence, but not on the warranty theory claimed by the plaintiff. We remanded the cause for further proceedings accordingly.

On certiorari, the Supreme Court of Florida held the complaint stated a cause of action against the defendant in question *373on the warranty theory as well as on the basis of negligence. We adopt the Supreme Court’s opinion and make it the opinion and judgment of this court. Our judgment of reversal stands, but we hereby recall our prior mandate and the directions on remand of the cause to- the circuit court shall be for further proceedings not inconsistent with the said opinion and judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida.

It is so ordered.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw