ETHEL KLEIN, APPELLANT,
v.
NEWBURGER, LOEB & CO., A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, 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.
The Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District, reviewed a lower court's judgment to ensure it complied with the appellate court's prior mandate. The appellate court found the lower court's judgment, which calculated interest only up to a previously reversed summary judgment date, did not conform to its mandate. The court vacated the erroneous judgment and remanded for a new judgment with interest calculated up to the date of the new judgment.
No, the trial court's judgment did not comply with the appellate court's mandate. The interest should have been calculated until the date of the new judgment, not a previously reversed judgment date.
“The judgment appealed is affirmed insofar as it found the appellant guilty of conversion and taxed costs * * *. In all other respects it is •.reversed, and the cause is remanded for the entry of a judgment in favor of the appellee based on the value of the stock at the time of its conversion by the appellant, to-wit: August 3, 1959, with interest at the lawful rate from that date until the rendition of judgment.”
This quote establishes the original appellate court's holding and mandate regarding the calculation of damages and interest.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellee petitioned for review of a circuit court judgment that was supposed to conform to this court's prior opinion and mandate. The prior opini…
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 Interest On Judgments cases and more on FLexlaw
This cause was heard on the petition of the appellee to review the judgment of the circuit court dated May 13, 1963, which said judgment was rendered on this court’s ■opinion and mandate issued April 30, 1963, 151 So.2d 879. The appellee complains that the judgment rendered on the ■opinion and mandate of this court was erroneous and failed to conform to said opinion and mandate.
The opinion of this court, as amended, provided in part:
“The judgment appealed is affirmed insofar as it found the appellant guilty of conversion and taxed costs * * *. In all other respects it is •.reversed, and the cause is remanded for the entry of a judgment in favor of the appellee based on the value of the stock at the time of its conversion by the appellant, to-wit: August 3, 1959, with interest at the lawful rate from that date until the rendition of judgment.”
The trial judge rendered a judgment in which he awarded the value of the stock as of August 3, 1959, and interest from that date until July 3, 1962, which was the date of the rendition of the summary judgment reversed by this court.
Although the language of our opinion may be susceptible to various inferences, the judgment rendered by the trial judge on May 13, 1963, is not in compliance with the opinion and mandate of this court and the same is hereby vacated and set aside. The cause is now remanded to the trial court for the entry of a judgment for the value of the stock on August 3, 1959, and lawful interest on that amount from August 3, 1959, until the trial judge enters the judgment now directed, together with such lawful costs as have heretofore been taxed.
It is so ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In re the Est. of Brewer Corbin v. Corbin, 391 So. 2d 731 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…ountry Club, Inc. v. Lindgren Plumbing Co., 175 So. 2d 570 (Fla.3d DCA), cert. denied 179 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 1965), after remand to trial court 196 So. 2d 242 (Fla.3d DCA 1967); Klein v. Newburger, Loeb & Co., 151 So. 2d 879 (Fla.3d DCA), after remand 153 So. 2d 344 (Fla.3d DCA 1963). Although argument might well be made that lost profits and other special damages should be awarded in conversion cases, see Dobbs, Remedies, 408-11 (1973), we perceive such special damages to be reflected in an appropriate award…1 / 2
-
Dep't OF Transp. v. Burnette, 399 So. 2d 51 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)…ces or even contains self-contradictions on its face, however, a district court may properly indicate what was intended by its prior decision. E. g., Hurt v. Virginia Heights Ass’n, 244 So. 2d 483 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971); Klein v. Newburger, Loeb & Co., 153 So. 2d 344 (Fla.3d DCA 1963). At an appropriate time, an appellate court in fact has an obligation to trial courts to clarify its opinions. Maeder v. Grayson, 227 So. 2d 308 (Fla.3d DCA 1969). See also Castlewood International Corp. v. Wynne, 305 So. 2d 773 (F…
-
City OF Miami Beach v. Cummings, 251 So. 2d 715 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)…y an appellate court, the trial court is without authority to take any further action in the cause other than to carry out the mandate of the appellate court. Berger v. Leposky, Fla.1958, 103 So. 2d 628; Klein v. Newburger, Loeb & Co., Fla.App.1963, 153 So. 2d 344; King v. L & L Investors, Inc., Fla.App.1962, 136 So. 2d 671. It may not amend such a judgment.1 Eisenburg v. Cornblum, 156 Fla. 702, 24 So. 2d 236 (1945). As pointed out by the appellees, the court always has jurisdiction to supervise the enforce…
Authorities Cited
- Klein v. Newburger, 151 So. 2d 879 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)