NELSON L. WHYTE AND EDNA R. HICKLING, AS ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF FRED L. HICKLING, DECEASED, APPELLANTS,
v.
COAST CITIES COACHES, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION AND JOHN L. WILLIAMS, 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 dispute over the sale of a company, Coast Cities Coaches, Inc. The court found that the current lawsuit sought the same relief as a previous case and was therefore controlled by the "law of the case" doctrine, leading to the dismissal of the complaint.
Yes, the current lawsuit was controlled by the "law of the case" doctrine because it sought the same relief as the prior action, and therefore the chancellor erred in not dismissing the complaint.
“The present suit instituted by the appel-lees, for all practical purposes, sought the same relief, and is clearly controlled by the "law of the case".”
Establishes that the current lawsuit was identical in purpose to a prior one.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 1960, Coast Cities Coaches, Inc. attempted to sell its business to Metropolitan Dade County Transit Authority. This court had previously affirmed a…
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
In 1960 the appellee sought to sell the Coast Cities Coaches, Inc. to the Metropolitan Dade County Transit Authority, and this court affirmed the chancellor’s injunction prohibiting such action until such time as appellants had been paid for their stock pursuant to the agreement of 1952.1
The present suit instituted by the appel-lees, for all practical purposes, sought the same relief, and is clearly controlled by the “law of the case”.2 It was therefore error for the chancellor to fail to dismiss the complaint.
Accordingly, the interlocutory order appealed is reversed and remanded with instructions to the chancellor to enter an order dismissing the complaint.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Roper, 482 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…intent, either actual or constructive, is a prerequisite for liability. This principle has been recognized by the Florida cases dealing with tortious interference with a business relationship. For example, in James Craggs Construction Co. v. USF&G, 167 So. 2d 25 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964), this court stated the following: “In litigation of this nature, the crux of the case is whether malice, within the meaning of the law, existed. The presence of malice is generally a question of fact for a jury to resolve.” This…
Authorities Cited
- Leybourne v. Furlong, 161 So. 2d 221 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Coast Cities Coaches, Inc. v. Whyte, 130 So. 2d 121 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)