ANHOCO CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND ANTWIN THEATRES, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANTS,
v.
DADE COUNTY, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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 remand following a Supreme Court decision that quashed the appellate court's prior affirmation of a lower court judgment. The appellate court is now vacating its own prior judgment and adopting the Supreme Court's ruling as its own, remanding the case back to the trial court for further proceedings.
The appellate court must vacate its prior judgment, adopt the Supreme Court's judgment as its own, and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's ruling.
“WHEREAS, by mandate of the Supreme Court of Florida, dated October 17, 1962, now lodged in this court, the cause was remanded to this court with directions to remand the same to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with the said opinion and judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida dated March 7, 1962;”
This quote establishes the Supreme Court's directive to the appellate 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 appellate court had previously affirmed a trial court judgment. However, the Florida Supreme Court reviewed this decision and quashed the appellat…
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 2nd day of March, 1961 (Fla.App., 127 So.2d 464) affirming the judgment of the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida in and for Dade County in the above styled cause; and
WHEREAS, on review of this court’s judgment by petition for writ of certiorari, the Supreme Court of Florida, by its opinion and judgment filed March 7, 1962, quashed this court’s judgment; and
WHEREAS, by mandate of the Supreme Court of Florida, dated October 17, 1962, now lodged in this court, the cause was remanded to this court with directions to remand the same to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with the said opinion and judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida dated March 7, 1962;
NOW, THEREFORE, it is ordered that the stay order entered by this court on April 4, 1961, is vacated, the mandate of this court issued in this cause on March 21, 1961, is withdrawn, the judgment and decision of this court filed in this cause on March 2, 1961, is withdrawn and vacated, and the said opinion and judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida is herewith made the opinion and judgment of this court and the cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with the said opinion and judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida dated March 7, 1962; 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
-
Chamberlain v. State, 881 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 2004)…Chamberlain of a fair trial. We reach this conclusion because, notwithstanding the fact that the weapon introduced into evidence was actually smaller than the demonstrative aid, the jury was not misled or confused in any way. See Robinson v. State, 145 So. 2d 561, 562 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962) (finding no error in admission of model of murder weapon that did not appear to confuse or mislead the jury). Ingman had previously testified that the asp used as the demonstrative aid was larger than what she had seen Chambe…
-
ED Ricke & Sons, Inc. v. Green, 468 So. 2d 908 (Fla. 1985)…l may be waived. Therefore, a motion for a mistrial should be made at the occurrence of the conduct complained of in order to be timely. State v. Prieto, 439 So. 2d 288 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), review denied, 450 So. 2d 488 (Fla.1984); Robinson v. State, 145 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962). Because the trial judge ruled on the motion for mistrial in this cause we need not address the issue of whether it was a valid or timely motion. We should, however, clearly rule that a motion for mistrial must be both unequivoca…
-
Harris v. State, 843 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 2003)…204 So. 2d 235, 238-39 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967) (finding that trial court did not err by admitting demonstrative evidence when it was relevant to the issues in the case and when it was a reasonably exact replica of the object involved); Robinson v. State, 145 So. 2d 561, 562 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962) (concluding that scale model of the death weapon did not mislead or confuse the jury and was appropriately identified by the state’s expert witness). Finally, the probative value of the replica outweighed any prejudicial effe…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Anhoco Corp. v. Dade Cnty., 127 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)