ELIOT R. WESTON AND FRANCOISE D. WESTON, HIS WIFE, PETITIONERS,
v.
IRVING NATHANSON AND JERE NATHANSON, HIS WIFE, 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 discharged a writ of certiorari, finding no jurisdictional conflict between its prior decisions and the District Court of Appeal's ruling, despite initial concerns about a conflict.
No, the District Court of Appeal's decision, while differing with the chancellor on a matter of judicial discretion, does not present a direct conflict with prior decisions of the Florida Supreme Court or other District Courts of Appeal.
“Because of an apparent conflict between the decision in the instant case and certain prior decisions of this Court, we granted a writ of certiorari and have heard the cause on both jurisdiction and merits.”
This quote establishes the initial reason for the Supreme Court's review of the case.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe petitioners sought review by the Florida Supreme Court, believing the District Court of Appeal's decision conflicted with prior state supreme cour…
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 Conflict Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
Because of an apparent conflict between the decision in the instant case and certain prior decisions of this Court, we granted a writ of certiorari and have heard the cause on both jurisdiction and merits.
Initially, we were concerned that a jurisdictional conflict of decisions was present. However, after oral argument and a thorough consideration of the record and briefs, we have concluded that there is no jurisdictional foundation for further action by this Court. The decision of the District Court of Appeal reveals that, within the limits of its authority, that court differed with the chancellor regarding a problem involving the exercise of a sound judicial discretion. Our jurisdiction will not be determined merely on a basis of whether our view on the merits is in accord or in disagreement with the view of the District Court of Appeal. In order to proceed to the merits we must find a direct conflict between the instant decision and a prior decision of this Court or another District Court of Appeal. Nielsen v. City of Sarasota, Fla., 117 So.2d 731. We find no such conflict to be present in the case before us.
We conclude that the writ was improvidently issued and it is, therefore, discharged.
It is so ordered.
THORNAL, Acting C. J., and O’CON-NELL, CALDWELL, ERVIN and HOB-SON (Ret.), JJ., concur.
On Rehearing.
On rehearing granted and after oral argument that original decision herein filed November 12, 1964 is adhered to.
It is so ordered.
DREW, C. J., ROBERTS, THORNAL, O’CONNELL, CALDWELL and BARNS (Retired), JJ., and McCORD, Circuit Judge, concur.
On Rehearing.
PER CURIAM.
On rehearing granted and after oral argument that original decision herein filed November 12, 1964 is adhered to.
It is so ordered.
DREW, C. J., ROBERTS, THORNAL, O’CONNELL, CALDWELL and BARNS (Retired), JJ., and McCORD, Circuit Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Dade Cnty. Port Auth. & Bituminous Cas. Corp. v. Keller, 117 So. 2d 731 (Fla. 1960)
- Nielsen v. City OF Sarasota, 117 So. 2d 731 (Fla. 1960)