S. A. RIZZO, AND SARA G. RIZZO, HIS WIFE, KE-RI-LA DEVELOPMENT CO., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, PETITIONERS,
v.
CARL E. NEWCOMER AND LOIS L. NEWCOMER, HIS WIFE, AND ALICE E. FRASURE, RESPONDENTS
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 granted a petition for certiorari to review a District Court of Appeal decision. The court granted a motion to limit the review to the merits and to remand the case if the lower court's decision is quashed, allowing the District Court to address undetermined issues.
Yes, the Florida Supreme Court granted the motion to limit the review to the merits and to remand the case to the District Court of Appeal for disposition of undetermined questions if the lower court's decision is quashed.
“A petition for certiorari has been granted to review the decision in Newcomer v. Rizzo, Fla.App. (3rd Dist.), 163 So. 2d 312, to be heard on the questions of jurisdiction and the merits.”
Establishes the procedural posture and the initial scope of review.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRespondents appealed to the District Court of Appeal on three grounds, but the court only addressed one, finding it well-founded. The other two ground…
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 Certiorari Review cases and more on FLexlaw
A petition for certiorari has been granted to review the decision in Newcomer v. Rizzo, Fla.App. (3rd Dist.), 163 So.2d 312, to be heard on the questions of jurisdiction and the merits.
The respondents, Newcomer, et al., have moved this court that the scope of any review be limited to the merits of the questions decided by the District Court upon the grounds that the respondents, as appellants in the District Court, presented three grounds for reversal but the District Court considered and determined only one of the three grounds for reversal to be well founded, and never reached for determination the other two grounds which became moot by reason of its decision on the first ground relating to the statutory construction; that in event the decision of the District Court is quashed then two of the grounds relied on there would cease to be moot but would yet be undetermined; and that in the event of a reversal of the District Court’s decision that the cause be remanded to the District Court for the disposition of the undetermined questions.
To the extent above recited, the foregoing motion is granted and in event the questions cease to remain moot, the cause will be remanded for its determination.
DREW, C. J., and ROBERTS, CALDWELL, ERVIN and BARNS (Ret.), JJ., concur.