CHARLOTTE LEYBOURNE, APPELLANT,
v.
MARTHA JOE FURLONG ET AL., 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 reinstated a circuit court's judgment after the Florida Supreme Court quashed the appellate court's decision. The Supreme Court directed the reinstatement of the lower court's judgment.
The District Court of Appeal held that it must comply with the Supreme Court's mandate by vacating its own prior judgment and reinstating the circuit court's summary final declaratory judgment.
“WHEREAS on review of this court's judgment, by certiorari, the Supreme Court of Florida, by its opinion and judgment filed December 16, 1964, and mandate dated February 8, 1965, now lodged in this court, quashed this court's judgment of reversal with directions to reinstate the judgment of the Circuit Court;”
This quote explains the critical action taken by the Supreme Court that necessitated the current order from 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 reversed a summary final declaratory judgment from the circuit court. However, the Florida Supreme Court r…
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 cases and more on FLexlaw
WHEREAS the judgment of this court was entered on January 21, 1964 (161 So.2d 221), reversing with directions the summary final declaratory judgment of the Circuit Court of the 11th 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 December 16, 1964, and mandate dated February 8, 1965, now lodged in this court, quashed this court’s judgment of reversal with directions to reinstate the judgment of the Circuit Court;
NOW, THEREFORE, It is Ordered that the mandate of this court issued on March 17, 1964 is withdrawn, the opinion and judgment of this court filed January 21, 1964, is vacated, the said opinion and judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida is herewith made the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 summary final declaratory judgment of the circuit court, appealed from in this cause is reinstated and affirmed.
Casts 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
-
Reddick v. State, 190 So. 2d 340 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)…1940, 140 Fla. 671, 192 So. 795; Rubenstein v. State, Fla.1951, 50 So. 2d 708; Asbey v. State, Fla.App.1958, 102 So. 2d 407; Hill v. State, Fla.App.1959, 110 So. 2d 464; Roberts v. State, Fla.App.1962, 142 So. 2d 152; Blake v. State, Fla.App. 1965, 171 So. 2d 207. And even a slight undue motivation will invalidate such a plea; it must be “without semblance” of ■such influence. Clay v. State, 1921, 82 Fla. 83, 89 So. 353; Casey v. State, 1934, 116 Fla. 3, 156 So. 282; Nickels v. State, 1923, 86 Fla. 208, 98 S…
-
Enos v. State, 272 So. 2d 847 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)…the inquiry by the trial court of defendant concerning her plea of nolo contendere was thorough and searching, and certainly adequate to determine whether the plea was voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently entered.” Blake v. State, Fla.App.1965, 171 So. 2d 207, and LaRocca v. State, Fla.App.1963, 151 So. 2d 64, require the motion but they were decided prior to Boykin v. Alabama, supra, which is the major and fundamental authority on the requirements to establish a guilty plea. There was no motion to withd…
-
Bartz v. State, 221 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)…140 Fla. 671, 192 So. 795; Rubenstein v. State, Fla. 1951, 50 So. 2d 708; Asbey v. State, Fla.App.1958, 102 So. 2d 407; Hill v. State, Fla.App.1959, 110 So. 2d 464; Rob [*9] erts v. State, Fla.App.1962, 142 So. 2d 152; Blake v. State, Fla.App.1965, 171 So. 2d 207. And even a slight undue motivation will invalidate such a plea; it must be ‘without semblance’ of such influence. Clay v. State, 1921, 82 Fla. 83, 89 So. 353; Casey v. State, 1934, 116 Fla. 3, 156 So. 282; Nickels v. State, 1923, 86 Fla. 208, 98 So…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Leybourne v. Furlong, 161 So. 2d 221 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)