DANIEL T. UTLEY, ET AL.,
v.
CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG
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 Supreme Court affirmed a lower court judgment upholding the validity of paving certificates issued by the City of St. Petersburg. This was the second appeal of the same case, and the Court applied the law-of-the-case doctrine to prevent re-litigation of issues already decided on the first appeal.
The Court held that the appellant could not re-litigate the validity of the certificates on new grounds. The law-of-the-case doctrine precludes a litigant from presenting new bases for invalidating an Act after the Court has already ruled adversely on other grounds, as this would allow endless re-litigation.
“It is well settled that all points adjudicated by an appellate court on writ of error or appeal become the law of the case .and are no longer open for discussion or consideration”
Establishes the foundational law-of-the-case doctrine that prevents re-litigation of issues already decided on appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe City of St. Petersburg issued paving certificates that were challenged as invalid. The same certificates had been litigated before in two prior ca…
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 Law Of The Case Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
This is the second appearance of this case here. See Utley, et al., v. City of St. Petersburg, 106 Fla. 882, 144 Sou. 57. A companion case has also been determined by this Court. See Utley, et al., v. City of St. Petersburg, 111 Fla. 844, 149 Sou. 806. In both of these cases we held that Chapter 13511, Acts of the Legislature of 1934, *269cured any defects which might have existed in connection with the issuance of the paving certificates under attack in these proceedings and, of course, the certificates involved in the case now before us are the same certificates which were involved when the case was here on the former appeal.
It is well settled that all points adjudicated by an appellate court on writ of error or appeal become the law of the case .and are no longer open for discussion or consideration, but it is also true that that principle is not applicable to and is not decisive upon points presented on a second writ of error or appeal that were not presented on a former writ of error of appeal.
The point of law presented on former appeal in this case was whether or not the certificates involved constituted valid obligations and whether or not the curative Act of the Legislature of 1931_above referred to cured all defects if any existed, in connection with the issuance of such certificate.
In the case now before us the appellant attempts to again question the validity of the certificates upon some further grounds which he now avers were not presented on the former hearing. This amounts to an application for a rehearing upon the point of law which has already been determined in this case and does not present for determination a question that was not determined in the original opinion which as to such question became the law of the case. A litigant may not contend that an Act is invalid and rely upon one or two grounds to show its invalidity and when the questions so presented have been determined adversely to him then say, “Well, conceding I am wrong about that, the Act is invalid on another ground which is thus and so,” litigate that question through the courts and when again that Act has been invalid, come back saying, “I contend *270there are yet other grounds which I have the right to assert as a basis of my litigation.” If this were permitted, litigation might go on and on forever. The law of the case upon the legal points which are now sought to be reviewed, to-wit, the effect of the curative Act of 1931, above cited, was determined by the opinion and judgment of this Court in the case above referred to and, therefore, the order appealed from is affirmed.
So ordered.
Affirmed.
Whitfield, C. J., and Terrell, Buford and Davis, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Strazzulla v. Hendrick, 177 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1965)…86, and other cases. In accord with this statement, either by the use of the same or by the use of similar language, are the following decisions: Florida East Coast Ry. v. Geiger, 1914, 66 Fla. 582, 64 So. 238; Utley v. City of St. Petersburg, 1935, 121 Fla. 268, 163 So. 523; Family Loan Co. v. Smetal Corporation, 1936, 123 Fla. 900, 169 So. 48, 49; United States Gypsum Co. v. Columbia Cas [*3] ualty Co., 1936, 124 Fla. 633, 169 So. 532; Haddock v. State, 1940, 141 Fla. 132, 192 So. 802; Oates v. New York L…
-
Haddock v. State, 141 Fla. 132 (Fla. 1939)…become the law of the case and are no longer open for discussion or consideration. See Harper Piano Co. v. Seaboard Air Line Ry., 65 Fla. 490, 62 So. 482; Commercial Bank v. First Nat. Bank, 80 Fla. 685, 87 So. 315; Utley v. City of St. Petersburg, 121 Fla. 268, 163 So. 523; McGregor v. Provident Trust Co., 119 Fla. 718, 162 So. 323. Counsel for plaintiff in error by plea to the jurisdiction, contends that Chapter 9356, Laws of Florida, Acts of 1923, and amendments, being an Act to establish the Criminal…
-
State of Fla. Dep't OF Transp. v. Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co., 275 So. 2d 289 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)…ance, matters which were before this court or assigned as error in the prior appeal. Thus, under the doctrine of “law of the case” we have previously ruled on the points and choose not to reconsider the matters. See: Utley v. City of St. Petersburg, 121 Fla. 268, 163 So. 523; McGregor v. Provident Trust Co. of Philadelphia, 119 Fla. 718, 162 So. 323; Cf., Choctawhatchee Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Moore, Fla.App. 1969, 220 So. 2d 20. Moreover, we are of the opinion that there was substantial competent evi…
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
- Matilda J. Utley v. City of St. Petersburg, 111 Fla. 844 (Fla. 1933)
- Utley v. City of St. Petersburg, 106 Fla. 882 (Fla. 1932)