PAN AMERICAN BANK OF MIAMI, A BANKING CORPORATION UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, AND SOTTIIE, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, PETITIONERS,
v.
ANSELMO L. ALLIEGRO, JR., A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH HIS LEGAL GUARDIAN AND FATHER, ANSELMO ALLIEGRO, AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, JOINED, ET AL., RESPONDENTS
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 court found no error in the District Court of Appeal's decision and adopted it as the correct disposition of the case.
The District Court of Appeal certified a decision passing on a question of great public interest. The Supreme Court reviewed the record and briefs.…
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 Writ Of Certiorari cases and more on FLexlaw
The District Court of Appeal, Third District, has certified that its decision “passes upon a question of great public interest.” See Alliegro v. Pan American Bank of Miami, Fla.App.1962, 136 So.2d 656. Our jurisdiction attaches pursuant to the certificate. Susco Car Rental System of Florida v. Leonard, Fla.1959, 112 So.2d 832.
Although by its decision the District Court of Appeal passed upon three questions of law, only one of them has been certified as occupying the status of a matter of great public interest. Nevertheless, we have considered all three questions under the rule of Zirin v. Charles Pfizer & Co., Fla.1961, 128 So.2d 594.
*46We have carefully studied the record and comprehensive briefs. On the basis of this review we find no error in the several rulings of the District Court of Appeal. While the case does involve important questions, our conclusion is that the District Court of Appeal resolved them correctly. That court reviewed all of the applicable authorities and properly applied them. Under the circumstances it would be a duplication of judicial labor for us merely to restate the case and then simply announce the same propositions of law in different verbiage.
Having considered the case on the merits pursuant to the certificate, we find no error in the decision of the District Court of Appeal. It is adopted and approved as a correct disposition of the case. There is, therefore, no reason to disturb it in any particular.
The writ of certiorari is denied.
It is so ordered.
ROBERTS, C. J„ and THOMAS, THORNAL, O’CONNELL and HOBSON (Ret.), JJ.,-concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Reuel Lawson v. State, 231 So. 2d 205 (Fla. 1970)…tion is certified to this Court by a District Court of Appeal as one of great public interest, our scope of review is extended to the entire decision of the District Court, and not just the question certified. Pan American Bank of Miami v. Alliegro, 149 So. 2d 45 (Fla.1963); Boulevard National Bank of Miami v. Air Metal Industries, Inc., 176 So. 2d 94 (Fla.1965). The defendant was informed against on August 15, 1953, for armed robbery, principal in the second degree. The Minutes of the Criminal Court of Rec…
Authorities Cited
- Miller v. Miller, 112 So. 2d 832 (Fla. 1959)
- Susco CAR Rental Sys. OF Fla. v. Leonard, 112 So. 2d 832 (Fla. 1959)
- Zirin v. Charles Pfizer & Co., Inc., 128 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 1961)
- Anselmo L. Alliegro, Jr. v. PAN Am. Bank OF Miami, 136 So. 2d 656 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)