H. H. BASKIN, AS MAYOR-COMMISSIONER, ET AL.,
v.
A. M. KLEMM, A WIDOW
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 affirmed a lower court's judgment in a companion case, allowing respondents to apply to spread a levy over two or more years, subject to court approval and potential review.
The judgment of the lower court is affirmed. The respondents are permitted to apply to the lower court to spread the levy over a term of two years or more, with the lower court having discretion to modify the writ accordingly.
“on authority of the opinion and judgment in that case the judgment in this case is affirmed, without prejudice, however, to the respondents making application for, and, with permission of the court below, to consider and make appropriate orders on, such application to spread the levy to be made over a term of two years or more.”
This quote establishes the basis for affirming the judgment and the conditional permission granted to the respondents.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThis case is a companion to another Baskin v. Klemm case decided by the court. The specific facts leading to the lower court's judgment are not detail…
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 Affirmance Of Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
This is a companion case to the other case of Baskin v. Klemm, known as Case No. 7471 law (See foregoing opinion), in which opinion was' filed at this term of the Court, and on authority of the opinion and judgment in that case the judgment in this case is affirmed, without prejudice, however, to the respondents making application for, and, with permission of the court below, to consider and make appropriate orders on, such application to spread the levy to be made over a term of two years or more.
Should such application be made to the court below and the court favorably consider the same, leave is hereby granted to the Circuit Court to require modification of the amended alternative writ so as to provide for such spread of the levy contemplated as to the court may appear to be in accordance with the law. Provided, however, that the action of the Circuit Court, if it should take such action, in spreading the levy may be subject to review by this Court on writ of error sued out by either party.
Judgment affirmed and cause remanded to the court below for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith.
Ellis, P J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
Whitfield, C. J., and Brown and Davis; J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (22 total)
-
Birge v. State, 92 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 1957)…e right guaranteed to an accused .-by the cited statute is a vested procedural right the denial of which constitutes reversible error. Lopez v. State, Fla. 1953, 66 So. 2d 807; Smith v. State, 155 Fla. 148, 19 So. 2d 698; Hall v. State, 119 Fla. 38, 160 So. 511; Landrum v. State, 79 Fla. 189, 84 So. 535; Meade v. State, Fla.1956, 85 So. 2d 613. As recently as Wright v. State, Fla.1956, 87 So. 2d 104, we recognized the preposition that while a trial judge may exercise some discretion in arranging the order…
-
Meade v. State, 85 So. 2d 613 (Fla. 1956)…1953, and F.S.A., the appellant was assured that if he offered “no testimony *■ ■* * except his own, [he would be] entitled to the concluding argument before the jury.” This is a “substantial, proce- [*615] diiral right.” Hall v. State, 119 Fla. 38, 160 So. 511, 512; Lopez v. State, Fla., 66 So. 2d 807. The procedure followed in this case was bound to result in confusion and, we think, damage to the appellant’s defense. We are convinced that the objections when made were valid and should have been sustai…
-
Lopez v. State, 66 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 1953)…above-quoted statute has been previously construed as vesting in a defendant and not his attorney a substantial procedural right,1 of which he cannot be deprived merely because the attorney also represents a codefendant. Hall v. State, 119 Fla. 38, 160 So. 511; 23 C. J. S., Criminal Law, § 983. The right to the closing argument is a vested one. The divestiture of that right must be strictly a matter for the decision of the accused. If he chooses to waive this statutory procedural right he may do so, but s…
Previewing 3 of 22 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence