STANLEY B. THOMAN ET AL., PETITIONERS,
v.
TIMMOTHY ASHLEY, ETC., ET AL., 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 denied a petition for certiorari, finding no direct conflict between lower court decisions on the availability of non-suits, a procedural issue later resolved by the court itself in a separate case.
No direct conflict has been shown between lower court decisions on the availability of non-suits, and therefore, the Florida Supreme Court should not exercise its certiorari jurisdiction.
“we conclude that no conflict has been shown justifying exercise of jurisdiction of this court especially as the petitioner sought a decision of the question whether or not non-suits are still available in our practice while the District Court of Appeal in their opinion in 170 So. 2d at page 333 observed that they were "unable to reach the nonsuit question * *”
Establishes the court's reasoning for denying jurisdiction based on the absence of a demonstrated conflict.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioners sought review by the Florida Supreme Court, raising the question of whether non-suits were still available in Florida practice. The Distri…
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 Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
When the petition for certiorari was presented we decided to hear argument on jurisdiction and merits.
Now having heard the argument and further studied the briefs we conclude that no conflict has been shown justifying exercise of jurisdiction of this court especially as the petitioner sought a decision of the question whether or not non-suits are still available in our practice while the District Court of Appeal in their opinion in 170 So.2d at page 333 observed that they were “unable to reach the nonsuit question * *
The absence of “direct conflict * * * on the same point of law,” to quote from Sec. 4(2) of Art. V of the Constitution, F.S.A., impels us to deny the petition for certiorari.
Meanwhile this court has decided in Crews v. Dobson, Fla., 177 So.2d 202, opinion filed 7 July 1965, that nonsuits are no longer recognized.
Petition for certiorari is denied.
DREW, Acting C. J., and THOMAS, CALDWELL, ERVIN and HOBSON (Retired), JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Armellini Express Lines, Inc. v. Sexton, 384 So. 2d 310 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)…is for estoppel by judgment. See Donnell v. Industrial Fire & Cas. Co., 378 So. 2d 1344 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Edwards v. Kings Point Housing Corp., 351 So. 2d 1073 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); Thoman v. Ashley, 170 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964), cert. denied, 177 So. 2d 205 (Fla.1965). Here there was only a verdict, and a verdict without a judgment is generally inadequate as a basis for estoppel by judgment. 50 C.J.S. Judgments § 614 (1947). Since there was no judgment against the appellants, we do not reach the issue…
-
McLEAN v. McLEAN, 461 So. 2d 1031 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)…n issue must plead and prove the judgment. The mere reference to a prior controversy is insufficient to raise the res judicata issue. See Betts v. Betts, 63 So. 2d 302 (Fla.1953) and Thomas v. Ashley, 170 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964), cert. denied, 177 So. 2d 205 (Fla.1965). Here, the wife pled and proved that the dissolution of the parties’ marriage was reduced to a final judgment; however, both parties admitted that the claim on the promissory note was not litigated in the dissolution action. Consequently,…
-
Peaslee v. Michalski, 184 So. 2d 497 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)…opinion in Crews v. Dobson, Fla. 1965, 177 So. 2d 202, which decision affirmed the First District Court of Appeal in its holding that nonsuits were, in effect, abolished by the modification of Rule 1.35 in 1962. See also Thoman v. Ashley, Fla. 1965, 177 So. 2d 205. Dismissals, as provided for in Rule 1.35, Fla.R.C.P., 30 F.S.A., have taken their place. In order to obtain a dismissal one must follow the requirements of Rule 1.35. The record shows there was no compliance with the strict letter of the dismissal…
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
- Crews v. Dobson, 177 So. 2d 202 (Fla. 1965)