SAMUEL DEL VECCHIO, AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF DOMENICO DEL VECCHIO, DECEASED, APPELLANT,

v.

JOSEPHINE DEL VECCHIO, APPELLEE

Fla. | 1963-04-26

No. 32515

TERRELL, THOMAS, THORNAL, O’CONNELL and CALDWELL, JJ., concur., ROBERTS, C. J., dissents.

152 So. 2d 457 Florida Supreme Court (1963) Positive Treatment

Cited by 3 cases

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

The Florida Supreme Court clarified jurisdictional boundaries between itself and district courts of appeal following remand from prior Supreme Court proceedings. The Court held that when it remands a case with instructions to the trial court, subsequent appeals of the trial court's compliance decree must return to the district court of appeal first, not directly to the Supreme Court.

Holding

The Supreme Court held that the District Court of Appeal lacked authority to transfer the case directly to the Supreme Court. Appeals of trial court decrees entered to comply with a Supreme Court remand must proceed through the district court of appeal first before returning to the Supreme Court, as the Supreme Court's opinion operates on the district court's judgment through the district court's mandate to the trial court.

Key Quotes

“The Kulhanjian case is inapposite here. That decision related solely to those cases within the jurisdiction of the district courts of appeal which were pending in this Court on the effective date of amended Article V of the Florida Constitution, F.S.A. It has no application to decisions and mandates of this Court in conflict certiorari proceedings where our judgment operates on the decision of the district court of appeal which we review.”
Establishes that the Armenian Hotel Owners precedent does not apply to appeals of trial court decrees entered pursuant to Supreme Court remands in certiorari proceedings

Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

This case follows an earlier Supreme Court decision in Del Vecchio v. Del Vecchio (143 So. 2d 17) where the Court quashed a district court judgment an…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Topics

Mandate Of The Court Conflict Certiorari Appellate Jurisdiction

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Mandate Of The Court cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

DREW, Judge.

The mandate of this Court in Del Vecchio v. Del Vecchio, Fla., 143 So.2d 17, was directed to the District Court of Appeal, Third District, quashing its opinion and judgment reported in 132 So.2d 771 and directing “that the cause be remanded to the trial court for further proceedings * * and the entry of a decree not inconsistent with the views herein expressed.” On our mandate going down the district court very properly vacated its previous mandate, issued a new mandate to the trial court in which it adopted our opinion and judgment as the opinion and judgment of the district court, and directed the trial court to comply therewith.

The trial court promptly entered a new final decree, whereupon an appeal was taken to the district court of appeal questioning said new decree.

The matter is now before us on a sua sponte order of the district court transferring the cause to this Court on the theory that under the rule laid down in Armenian Hotel Owners, Inc., v. Kulhan-*458jian (Fla.1957), 96 So.2d 896, the jurisdiction was here.1

The Kulhanjian case is inapposite here. That decision related solely to those cases within the jurisdiction of the district courts of appeal which were pending in this Court on the effective date of amended Article V of the Florida Constitution, F.S.A.2 It has no application to decisions and mandates of this Court in conflict certiorari proceedings where our judgment operates on the decision of the district court of appeal which we review.3

The opinion of this Court, properly adopted by the district court as its own, operates on the trial court’s decree only under the mandate of the district court. Further proceedings must therefore go directly to the district court and then to this Court where proper.

The cause should accordingly be returned to the District Court of Appeal, Third District, for decision.

It is so ordered.

TERRELL, THOMAS, THORNAL, O’CONNELL and CALDWELL, JJ., concur.

ROBERTS, C. J., dissents.

. The order transferring the cause here reads as follows:

“The appeal in this case is from a decree of the Circuit Court entered after further proceedings had pursuant to mandate of the Supreme Court of Florida following quashal of a judgment of this appellate court. (143 So.2d 17). Because eleven of the eighteen assignments of error on the present appeal challenge the decree as not being in accord with the mandate of the Supreme Court, we conclude that jurisdiction of this appeal is in that court. See Armenian Hotel Owners, Inc. v. Kulhanjian, Fla.1957, 96 So.2d 896.

“This order of transfer to the Supreme Court is made in accordance with the policy announced in Armenian Hotel Owners, Inc. v. Kulhanjian, supra, to the effect that when a cause has been considered and determined by the Supreme Court of Florida and remanded by that court for further proceedings, “all orders, judgments, or decrees entered by the lower [trial] court in such cause to effectuate the mandate of this [Supreme] court are reviewable by this [Supreme] Court as the court of prior appellate jurisdiction.

“Whereupon, this court, sua sponte, orders that the notice of appeal and all other papers filed prior to March 5, 1963, shall on that date be transferred to the Supreme Court of Florida as the proper court having jurisdiction in this cause.”

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

del Vecchio v. del Vecchio, 179 So. 2d 400 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)

…e of res adjudicata. This cause has been many times before tne appellate courts of this State. See: Del Vecchio v. Del Vecchio, Fla.App.1961, 132 So. 2d 771; Del Vecchio v. Del Vecchio, Fla.1962, 143 So. 2d 17; Del Vecchio v. Del Vecchio, Fla.1963, 152 So. 2d 457; Del Vecchio v. Del Vecchio, Fla.App.1963, 157 So. 2d 530; Del Vecchio v. Del Vecchio, Fla.App.1964, 161 So. 2d 728; Del Vecchio v. Del Vecchio, Fla.1964, 162 So. 2d 665. From the record in this cause and the previous opinions of the appellate cour…
del Vecchio v. del Vecchio, 161 So. 2d 728 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)

…PER CURIAM.. Appeal Dismissed. On remand from Fla., 152 So. 2d 457;…

Authorities Cited

del Vecchio v. del Vecchio, 143 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 1962)
Armenian Hotel Owners, Inc., 96 So. 2d 896 (Fla. 1957)
Shell's City, Inc. v. Hanson, 139 So. 2d 406 (Fla. 1962)
Robinson v. State, 132 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)
del Vecchio v. del Vecchio, 132 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw