IRVING M. FISCHER, APPELLANT,
v.
JEFFERSON INSURANCE COMPANY, AN ARKANSAS CORPORATION AND WILLIAM J. VAN HORN, APPELLEES
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, Third District, vacated its prior judgment and adopted the opinion of the Florida Supreme Court, thereby affirming the original circuit court decree. The Supreme Court had quashed the appellate court's reversal, directing further proceedings consistent with its views.
The District Court of Appeal adopted the Florida Supreme Court's opinion and judgment, vacated its own prior judgment, and affirmed the final decree of the Circuit Court.
“quashed this court's judgment of reversal and remanded the cause for further proceedings not inconsistent with the views expressed in the said opinion and judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida”
Describes the action taken by the Florida Supreme Court on review by certiorari.
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 a final decree from the Circuit Court. Upon review by certiorari, the Florida Supreme Court quash…
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.
Whereas, the judgment of this court was entered on October 8, 1963, (156 So.2d 777) reversing the final decree of the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida in and for Dade County 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 May 20, 1964 (166 So.2d 129) and mandate dated July 7, 1964, now lodged in this court, quashed this court’s judgment of reversal and remanded the cause for further proceedings not inconsistent with the views expressed in the said opinion and judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida;
Now, therefore, It is Ordered that the mandate of this court issued in this cause on October 29, 1963, is withdrawn, the opinion and judgment of this court filed October 8, 1963 is vacated, the said opinion and judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida is herewith made the opinion and judgment of this court and the final decree of the Circuit Court appealed from is affirmed. Costs allowed shall be taxed in the Circuit Court (Rule 3.16, subd. b Florida Appellate Rules, 31 F.S.A.).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hardwick v. State, 521 So. 2d 1071 (Fla. 1988)…2541; Smith v. State, 444 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). This particularly is true where, as here, the accused indicates that his actual desire is to obtain different court-appointed counsel, which is not his constitutional right. Donald v. State, 166 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964). The record before us reflects that the trial court construed Hardwick’s comments as effectively requesting self-representation, albeit equivocally, and made the appropriate inquiry. The court examined the defendant’s ability to…
-
Matthews v. State, 584 So. 2d 1105 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)…8 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.111(d). This determination is particularly important where, as here, the defendant’s actual desire is to obtain different court appointed counsel which is not his constitutional right. Hardwick; Donald v. State, 166 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964). As mentioned above, the trial court in this case properly considered whether adequate grounds existed for removing the appellant’s court appointed counsel. Once this determination was made, however, the court erred by not procee…
-
Hammond v. State, 264 So. 2d 463 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)…d: 1) the lawyer had no interest in his case, 2) defendant knew certain pertinent facts regarding his case, which he would like to convey to his attorney. Defendant in the case at bar made similar allegations. See also Donald v. State, Fla.App.1964, 166 So. 2d 453; Douglas v. State, Fla.App.1968, 212 So. 2d 42; and Diehl v. State, Fla.App.1967, 200 So. 2d 240. B. The case at bar is similar to Brooks v. State, Fla.App.1965, 172 So. 2d 876. There the indigent defendant was represented at his jury trial by the…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Jefferson Ins. Co. v. Fischer, 166 So. 2d 129 (Fla. 1964)
- Fischer v. Jefferson Ins. Co., 156 So. 2d 777 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)