WOODROW THOMAS BLUE, A MINOR, BY HIS FATHER AND NEXT FRIEND, THOMAS BLUE AND THOMAS BLUE, INDIVIDUALLY, APPELLANTS,
v.
THE DRACKETT PRODUCTS CO., AN OHIO CORPORATION, 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 history where the Florida District Court of Appeal initially reversed a trial court judgment, but the Florida Supreme Court quashed that reversal, directing the appellate court to affirm the trial court's judgment. Consequently, the appellate court vacated its prior decision and affirmed the trial court's judgment.
The District Court of Appeal held that its prior judgment reversing the trial court's decision was incorrect and that the trial court's judgment should be affirmed, as directed by the Florida Supreme Court.
“Whereas, the judgment of this court was entered on the 4th day of September, 1962 (Fla.App., 143 So. 2d 897) reversing the judgment of the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Dade County, Florida, in the above styled cause; and Whereas, on review of this court's judgment, by certiorari, the Supreme Court of Florida, by its opinion and judgment filed April 3, 1963 (152 So. 2d 463) quashed this court's judgment of reversal; and Whereas, by the mandate of the Supreme Court of Florida, dated May 13, 1963, now lodged in this court, the cause was remanded with directions to affirm the judgment of the trial court;”
This quote outlines the procedural history and the directive from the Supreme Court that dictates the current court's action.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe case originated from a judgment in the Circuit Court of Dade County. The District Court of Appeal reversed this judgment. Subsequently, the Florid…
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 4th day of September, 1962 (Fla.App., 143 So.2d 897) reversing the judgment of the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Dade County, Florida, in the above styled cause; and
Whereas, on review of this court’s judgment, by certiorari, the Supreme Court of Florida, by its opinion and judgment filed April 3, 1963 (152 So.2d 463) quashed this court’s judgment of reversal; and
Whereas, by the mandate of the Supreme Court of Florida, dated May 13, 1963, now lodged in this court, the cause was remanded with directions to affirm the judgment of the trial court;
Therefore, it is Ordered that the mandate of this court issued in this cause on September 21, 1962, is withdrawn, the judgment of this court filed September 4, 1962,. is vacated, the opinion and judgment of the-Supreme Court of Florida is herewith made the opinion and judgment of this court, and the said judgment of the circuit court appealed from in this cause is affirmed; costs allowed shall be taxed in the circuit court (Rule 3.16b, F.A.R. 31 F.S.A.).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (15 total)
-
Krieger v. Ocean Props., Ltd., 387 So. 2d 1012 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)…le of Florida realty where such brokers were employed by brokers licensed in Florida to locate purchasers within the states in which they were licensed. Kagan v. Garfinkle, 312 So. 2d 778 (Fla.3d DCA 1975); Pokress v. Tisch Florida Properties, Inc., 153 So. 2d 346 (Fla.3d DCA 1963). To properly evaluate plaintiff’s complaint, we must turn to the general rules governing motions for judgment on the pleadings. Under Rule 1.140(c), Fla.R. Civ.P., all material allegations of the opposing party’s pleading are to b…
-
Geneva Inv. v. Trafalgar Developers, Ltd., 274 So. 2d 581 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)…ced to deal with dishonest or unscrupulous real estate operators, rather than to permit one party to gain unconscionable advantage by avoiding a just obligation which he has contracted to pay. Pokress v. Tisch Florida Properties, Inc., Fla.App.1963, 153 So. 2d 346. We hold that the contracts in the case sub judice are not void and unenforceable because registration under F.S. § 475.41, F.S.A. was not necessary at the time of execution of these contracts which called for performance at a future date. Further,…
-
Boyce Constr. Corp. & United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. The Dist. Bd. OF Trs. OF Valencia Cmty. Coll. f/u/b/o Diversified Design Enters., Inc., 414 So. 2d 634 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)….190(b) itself does not support an amendment adding quantum meruit counts. There is authority for the proposition that a court should not allow an amendment in the absence of a party’s motion therefore. See Pokress v. Tisch Florida Properties, Inc., 153 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963). Perhaps this problem could be surmounted by appel-lee based upon the argument that the rule recognizes that such a motion may be made by a party at any time, even after judgment and, in the instant case, there was an ore ten us m…
Previewing 3 of 15 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- The Drackett Prods. Co. v. Blue, 152 So. 2d 463 (Fla. 1963)
- Blue v. The Drackett Prods. Co., 143 So. 2d 897 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)