CHARLES J. COURSHON AND WILLIAM J. GOLDWORN, APPELLANTS,
v.
HAROLD TOBIN, 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 maneuver where the Florida District Court of Appeal vacated its prior judgment and affirmed the trial court's order, following a reversal by the Florida Supreme Court. The Supreme Court directed the appellate court to affirm the trial court's decision, effectively correcting the appellate court's initial reversal.
The District Court of Appeal must follow the directive of the Florida Supreme Court. Therefore, the appellate court's prior judgment reversing the trial court's order is vacated, and the trial court's order is affirmed.
“Whereas, the judgment of this court was entered on the 8th day of January, 1963 (Fla.App., 148 So. 2d 285), reversing the order 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 June 28, 1963 (155 So. 2d 785), and mandate dated September 11,1963, now lodged in this court, reversed this court's judgment with directions to affirm the order of the trial court”
This quote summarizes the procedural history leading to the current decision, highlighting the conflict between the District Court's initial ruling and the Supreme Court's subsequent directive.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe District Court of Appeal had previously reversed an order from the Circuit Court. The Supreme Court of Florida, upon reviewing the District Court'…
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 Vacating Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
Whereas, the judgment of this court was entered on the 8th day of January, 1963 (Fla.App., 148 So.2d 285), reversing the order 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 June 28, 1963 (155 So.2d 785), and mandate dated September 11,1963, now lodged in this court, reversed this court’s judgment with directions to affirm the order of the trial court,
Now, therefore, It is Ordered that the mandate of this court issued on January 21, 1963, is withdrawn, the judgment of this court filed January 8, 1963, is vacated, the opinion and judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida is herewith made the opinion and judgment of this court, and the order of the Circuit Court appealed from in this cause is affirmed; costs allowed shall be taxed dn the Circuit Court (Rule 3.16 subd. b, F.A.R., 31 F.S.A.).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McKEAN v. Kloeppel Hotels, Inc., 171 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965)…th a general exception of doubtful import, will constitute an admission.’ ” Appellant’s affidavit herein, filed subsequent to her responses to appellee’s requests for admissions, is ineffectual to controvert or vary said responses. Bente v. Nelson, 156 So. 2d 17 (Fla.App.2d 1963); Kramer v. Landau, 113 So. 2d 756 (Fla.App.3d 1959) ; Ellison v. Anderson, 74 So. 2d 680 (Fla.1954). In the Bente case the court, in sustaining a summary judgment based on admissions of the defendant, said: “The admissions resulti…
-
Croft v. York, 244 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)…954), 74 So. 2d 680. . Andrews v. Midland National Insurance Company (Fla.App.1968), 208 So. 2d 136; Williams v. Duggan (Fla.App.1965), 172 So. 2d 844; McKean v. Kloeppel Hotels, Inc. (Fla. App.1965), 171 So. 2d 552; Bente v. Nelson (Fla.App.1963), 156 So. 2d 17; Kamer v. Landau (Fla.App.1959), 113 So. 2d 756.…
-
Elison v. Goodman, 395 So. 2d 1201 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…ton v. Sloane Co. of Sarasota, 240 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970); Williams v. Duggan, 172 So. 2d 844 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965); Tri-County Produce Distributors, Inc. v. Northeast Production Credit Ass'n, 160 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963); Bente v. Nelson, 156 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963); Kramer v. Landau, 113 So. 2d 756 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959). Nor did the appellants bring themselves within the exception to this principle which arises when there is a “credible explanation by the affiant as to the reason for the discr…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Tobin v. Courshon, 155 So. 2d 785 (Fla. 1963)
- Courshon v. Tobin, 148 So. 2d 285 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)