FONTAINEBLEAU HOTEL CORP., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, PETITIONER,
v.
FORTY-FIVE TWENTY-FIVE, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND HARRY MUFSON, 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 certiorari to review a dismissal order affirmed by the District Court of Appeal without opinion. Rather than deciding the merits, the Supreme Court remanded the case to the District Court to issue a reasoned opinion explaining its decision, as the lack of appellate reasoning prevented meaningful review.
The Court determined it could not properly exercise jurisdiction without a reasoned opinion from the District Court of Appeal explaining the basis for its decision. The Court remanded the case to the District Court to reconsider the cause and adopt an opinion setting forth the theory and reasoning for its judgment.
“Inasmuch as the District Court of Appeal affirmed without an opinion the decision of the Circuit Court, we are without the benefit of a majority opinion of the District Court of Appeal, which renders our task and duty of determining the question of jurisdiction more difficult.”
Establishes the Court's central concern that the lack of a reasoned opinion prevents proper appellate review.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFontainebleau Hotel Corp. filed a tort complaint against Forty-Five Twenty-Five, Inc. and Harry Mufson, alleging wrongful and malicious interference w…
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 Florida Supreme Court Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
Petitioner, plaintiff in the Circuit Court; seeks review by certiorari of a decision of the District Court of Appeal, Third District, 150 So.2d 304, affirming, without opinion, an order of the' Circuit Court granting defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Petitioner asserts that a direct conflict exists between the instant case and various decisions of this court. See Tatum Bros. Real Estate & Investment Co. v. Watson, 92 Fla. 278, 109 So. 623; Duval Jewelry Co. v. Smith, 102 Fla. 717, 136 So. 878; and S. H. Kress & Co. v. Powell, 132 Fla. 471, 180 So. 757; and the decision of the District Court of Appeal, First District, in Wilson v. O’Neal, 118 So.2d 101 (Fla. App. 1st 1960). Also compare Hunter Lyon, Inc. v. Walker, 152 Fla. 61, 11 So.2d *318176, and Regan v. Davis, Fla., 97 So.2d 324 and annotations in 9 A.L.R. 2nd 228.
Probable jurisdiction having been made to appear on the theory of “direct conflict,” 'the cause was set down for oral argument -on the question of jurisdiction and on the merits, and is now before this court for -decision in the light of such argument and '.the briefs of the parties.
Necessarily, we must first address our'selves to the question of our jurisdiction under Article V of the Constitution of Florida, F.S.A. to review the cause. Inasmuch as the District Court of Appeal affirmed without an opinion the decision of the Circuit Court, we are without the benefit of a majority opinion of the District Court ■of Appeal, which renders our task and ■duty of determining the question of juris■diction more difficult. Because the District 'Court of Appeal did not express an opinion, we have examined the record proper. From ■such examination we learn that the petitioner’s complaint, sounding in tort, sought damages for the allegedly wrongful and malicious interference by defendant-respondents with petitioner’s business, without justification or excuse, including the malicious prosecution of a civil proceeding, with the “malicious purpose and intention” •of injuring petitioner. The respondents’ •■allegedly willful, malicious and tortious acts were set forth at length by petitioner in its complaint — which, with exhibits, numbered some 58 pages. The respondents’ motion to dismiss was upon three grounds: >(1) Failure to state a cause of action, (2) res judicata, and (3) estoppel by judgment.
The trial court’s order and judgment dismissing the complaint did not specify the ground upon which the dismissal was based; and the appellate court, in affirming the judgment, did not specify its reasons for so doing.
Our final decision in this cause would be greatly facilitated by an expression of the District Court of Appeal of the theory and reasoning upon which its judgment is bottomed, dealing particularly with the questions raised in the motion to dismiss. See Home Development Company of St. Petersburg, Inc. et al. v. Bursani et al., Fla., 168 So.2d 131, opinion filed October 2, 1964. Cf. State v. Bruno, Fla., 104 So.2d 588, and Rosenthal v. Scott, Fla., 131 So.2d 480.
Accordingly, request is respectfully made to the District Court of Appeal, Third District, that it reconsider the cause and particularly the questions mentioned earlier herein, and adopt an opinion setting forth the theory and reasoning upon which a decision in the cause is reached; and jurisdiction is relinquished to that Court, temporarily, for that purpose, upon completion of which this court will proceed to determine whether or not the cause should be reviewed here under Article V, Constitution of Florida.
It is so ordered.
DREW, C. J., and ROBERTS, O’CON-NELL, CALDWELL and ERVIN, JJ., concur.
THORNAL, J., dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Foley v. Weaver Drugs, Inc., 168 So. 2d 749 (Fla. 1964)…otion to dismiss. See Home Development Company of St. Petersburg, Inc., et al., v. Bursani, et aL., opinion filed October 2, 1964, Fla., 168 So. 2d 131; Fontainebleau Hotel Corp. v. Forty-five Twenty-five, Inc., opinion filed October 28, 1964, Fla., 168 So. 2d 317. Cf. State v. Bruno, Fla., 104 So. 2d 588, and Rosenthal v. Scott, Fla., 131 So. 2d 480. Accordingly, request is respectfully made to the District Court of Appeal, Third District, that it reconsider the cause and particularly the questions mentione…
-
Fla. Greyhound Owners & Breeders Ass'n, Inc. v. W. Flagler Assocs., Ltd., 347 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 1977)…uriam reversal. . See, for example, Home Development Co. of St. Petersburg, Inc. v. Bursani, 168 So. 2d 131 (Fla.1964); Young Spring & Wire Corp. v. Smith, 168 So. 2d 540 (Fla.1964); Fontainebleau [*411] Hotel Corp. v. Forty-five Twenty-five, Inc., 168 So. 2d 317 (Fla.1964). . In Acme Specialty Corp. v. City of Miami, 292 So. 2d 379, 380 (Fla.3d DCA 1974), the court stated that while “sufficient to support a plea of res judicata as between the original parties, such per cu-riam affirmance opinion does not…
-
Fontainebleau Hotel Corp. v. Forty-Five Twenty-Five, Inc., 172 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)…by the trial court. Petition for certiorari was filed in the Supreme Court of Florida by the appellant in May, 1963. After hearing oral argument on the question of jurisdiction and the merits, the Supreme Court, in an opinion dated October 28, 1964, 168 So. 2d 317, relinquished jurisdiction temporarily with the request that this court “ * * * reconsider the cause and particularly the questions mentioned earlier herein [the ‘questions mentioned’ were the three grounds contained in the appellees’ motion to dism…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Tatum Bros. Real Est. & Inv. Co. v. Watson, 92 Fla. 278 (Fla. 1926)
- S. H. Kress & Co. v. Powell, 132 Fla. 471 (Fla. 1938)
- Duval Jewelry Co. v. Smith, 102 Fla. 717 (Fla. 1931)
- State v. Bruno, 104 So. 2d 588 (Fla. 1958)
- Wilson v. Truby O'Neal, 118 So. 2d 101 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960)
- Hunter Lyon, Inc. v. Walker, 152 Fla. 61 (Fla. 1942)
- Regan v. Davis, 97 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 2d DCA 1957)
- Murray Rosenthal and Joseph Rosenthal v. Scott, 131 So. 2d 480 (Fla. 1961)
- Home Dev. Co. OF ST. Petersburg, Inc. v. Bursani, 168 So. 2d 131 (Fla. 1964)
- Walsh v. Barker, 150 So. 2d 304 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)