JOSE BURGER, APPELLANT,
v.
LISELOTTE BURGER, 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 adopted the Florida Supreme Court's judgment after the Supreme Court quashed the District Court's decision on review by certiorari. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's ruling.
The District Court of Appeal vacated its prior judgment and adopted the Supreme Court of Florida's opinion and judgment as its own where there was conflict or inconsistency. Costs were to be taxed in the Circuit Court.
“Whereas, by the mandate of the Supreme Court of Florida, dated August 3, 1964, now lodged in this court, the cause was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the decision of the Supreme Court;”
This quote establishes the Supreme Court's directive to the District Court of Appeal.
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 affirmed in part and reversed in part a judgment from the Circuit Court. The Supreme Court of Florida revi…
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 15th day of October, 1963 (156 So.2d 905), affirming in part and reversing in part 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 July 13, 1964, 166 So.2d 433, quashing this court’s judgment to the extent considered by the said opinion of the Supreme Court; and
Whereas, by the mandate of the Supreme Court of Florida, dated August 3, 1964, now lodged in this court, the cause was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the decision of the Supreme Court;
Now, therefore, it is ordered that the mandate of this court issued in this cause on November 5, 1963, is withdrawn, the judgment of this court filed October 15, 1963, is vacated and the opinion and judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida is made the opinion and judgment of this court where the opinion of this court is in conflict or inconsistent with the opinion of the Supreme Court of Florida; costs allowed shall be taxed in 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
-
In re Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, 196 So. 2d 124 (Fla. 1967)…riminal prosecutions shall have the right to a public trial by an impartial jury. Criminal contempt is not a crime; consequently, no criminal prosecution is involved. (Ballengee v. State, 144 So. 2d 68 (Fla.App.1962; State ex rel. Saunders v. Boyer, 166 So. 2d 694 (Fla.App.1964); Neering v. State, 155 So. 2d 874 (Fla.1963).) Sec. 3 of the Declaration of Rights, providing that the right of trial by jury shall be secured to all and remain inviolate forever, also apparently is not violated. This provision has b…
-
Ward v. State, 354 So. 2d 438 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…. So much of the sentence as provides for punishment other than the fine is improper in this case. If contrived to instill contriteness, it is unnecessary; if for any other purpose, it is an abuse of discretion. See State ex rel. Saunders v. Boyer, 166 So. 2d 694 (Fla.2d DCA 1964). Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed and the sentence is amended by striking the punishment other than the fine, which is affirmed. Affirmed in part; reversed in part.…
-
In re Amendments to the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, 606 So. 2d 227 (Fla. 1992)…all criminal prosecutions shall have the right to a public trial by an impartial jury. Criminal contempt is not a crime; consequently, no criminal prosecution is involved. Neering v. State, 155 So. 2d 874 (Fla.1963); State ex rel. Saunders v. Boyer, 166 So. 2d 694 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964); Ballengee v. State, 144 So. 2d 68 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962), Section 3 of the Declaration of Rights, providing that the right of trial by jury shall be secured to all and remain inviolate forever, also apparently is not violated. This…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Lisolette Burger v. Burger, 166 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 1964)
- Burger v. Liseiotte Burger, 156 So. 2d 905 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)