T. W. ROSS, ALSO KNOWN AS THEODORE WALTER ROSS, PETITIONER,
v.
TOWN OF LAUDERDALE-BY-THE-SEA, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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 decision of the Second District Court of Appeal, finding a jurisdictional conflict with a decision from the Third District Court of Appeal. The Court quashed the decision under review and remanded it for disposition consistent with its ruling in a related case.
Yes, the Second District Court of Appeal's decision, by relying on the First District's ruling, generates a jurisdictional conflict with the Third District Court of Appeal's decision.
“By petition for a writ of certiorari we are requested to review a decision of the Court of Appeal, Second District, because of an alleged conflict on the same point of law with the decision of another Court of Appeal.”
Establishes the basis for the Supreme Court's review.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe petitioner sought review of a decision by the Second District Court of Appeal, which affirmed a trial judge's ruling. The Second District relied o…
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 Writ Of Certiorari cases and more on FLexlaw
By petition for a writ of certiorari we are requested to review a decision of the Court of Appeal, Second District, because of an alleged conflict on the same point of law with the decision of another Court of Appeal. Ross v. Town of Lauderdale-by-the-Sea, 163 So.2d 770.
The District Court here affirmed the trial judge on the authority of the opinion of the Court of Appeal, First District, in Middleton v. City of Fort Walton Beach, 113 So.2d 431, and other cases. The petitioner alleges that this decision collides with the decision of the Third District Court of Appeal in Simpson v. City of Miami et al., 155 So.2d 829.
We find that the decision of the First District in Middleton is in direct conflict with the decision of the Third District in Simpson. Inasmuch as the Second District in the instant case relies upon Middleton, we hold that this decision, therefore, generates a jurisdictional conflict with the decision of the Third District in Simpson.
By our opinion in City of Miami v. Simpson, Fla., 172 So.2d 435, filed 17th of February, 1965, we have approved the decision of the Third District in Simpson v. Miami, Fla.App., 155 So.2d 829. In view of our decision there, repetition here would be superfluous.
The writ is granted. The decision under review is quashed and the cause is remanded to the Court of Appeal, Second District, for disposition in accordance with the views expressed by us in City of Miami v. Simpson, supra.
It is so ordered.
DREW, C. J., and THOMAS, ROBERTS, THORNAL, O’CONNELL and ERVIN, JJ., concur.
dissents, see dissent in City of Miami v. Simpson, Fla., 172 So.2d 435, this day filed.
CALDWELL, J.,
dissents, see dissent in City of Miami v. Simpson, Fla., 172 So. 2d 435, this day filed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- City OF Miami v. Roce Simpson, 172 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 1965)
- Middleton v. City OF Fort Walton Beach, 113 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959)
- Roce Simpson v. City OF Miami, 155 So. 2d 829 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)
- Ross v. Town OF Lauderdale-By-The-Sea, 163 So. 2d 770 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)