SAMUEL DEL VECCHIO, EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF DOMENICO DEL VECCHIO, DECEASED, APPELLANT,
v.
JOSEPHINE DEL VECCHIO, APPELLEE
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 appellate court affirmed a summary final decree based on res judicata, finding that the issues raised in the current action had already been litigated or could have been litigated in prior proceedings.
Yes, the current action is barred by res judicata because the issues raised were previously litigated or could have been raised in prior proceedings.
“Therefore, the chancellor's granting of a summary final decree upon the affirmative defense of res adjudicata was eminently correct, and the decree here under review is hereby affirmed on the authority of: Hay v. Salisbury, 92 Fla. 446, 109 So. 617; Wolfson v. Rubin, Fla.1951, 52 So. 2d 344; Litt v. Jarson, Fla.App.1957, 97 So. 2d 46; Stadler v. Cherry Hill Developers, Inc., Fla.App.1963, 150 So. 2d 468; 19 Fla.Jur., Judgments and Decrees, § 120.”
Establishes the court's reasoning for affirming the lower court's decision based on res judicata and cites supporting authorities.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant, as executor of an estate, attempted to raise issues in a new action that had been previously addressed or could have been addressed in …
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 Affirmative Defense cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, plaintiff in the trial court, seeks review of an adverse summary final decree entered by the chancellor upon the affirmative defense of res adjudicata.
This cause has been many times before tne appellate courts of this State. See: Del Vecchio v. Del Vecchio, Fla.App.1961, 132 So.2d 771; Del Vecchio v. Del Vecchio, Fla.1962, 143 So.2d 17; Del Vecchio v. Del Vecchio, Fla.1963, 152 So.2d 457; Del Vecchio v. Del Vecchio, Fla.App.1963, 157 So.2d 530; Del Vecchio v. Del Vecchio, Fla.App.1964, 161 So.2d 728; Del Vecchio v. Del Vecchio, Fla.1964, 162 So.2d 665.
From the record in this cause and the previous opinions of the appellate courts, it is apparent that the issues attempted to be raised in the instant action were raised, could have or should have been raised in the prior proceedings. Therefore, the chancellor’s granting of a summary final decree upon the principle of res adjudicata was eminently correct, and the decree here under review is hereby affirmed on the authority of: Hay v. Salisbury, 92 Fla. 446, 109 So. 617; Wolfson v. Rubin, Fla.1951, 52 So.2d 344; Litt v. Jarson, Fla.App.1957, 97 So.2d 46; Stadler v. Cherry Hill Developers, Inc., Fla.App.1963, 150 So.2d 468; 19 Fla.Jur., Judgments and Decrees, § 120.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
ICC Chem. Corp. v. Freeman, 640 So. 2d 92 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)…matters actually raised and determined as well as to all other matters which could properly have been raised and determined in the prior action, whether they were or not. Hay v. Salisbury, 92 Fla. 446, 109 So. 617 (1926); Del Vecchio v. Del Vecchio, 179 So. 2d 400 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965); 32 Fla.Jur.2d Judgments and Decrees § 115 (1981). The issues of bad faith allegedly arising out of the facsimile notification sent by Freeman were raised or could have been raised in the prior arbitration proceedings. According…
-
Murray Blattman under that certain Tr. Agreement dated December 18 v. Williams Island Assocs., Ltd., 592 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…rine of res judicata as they represent efforts to reliti-gate issues which were either decided adversely to the plaintiffs in the prior action or to raise issues which should have been litigated therein by the plaintiffs. Del Vecchio v. Del Vecchio, 179 So. 2d 400 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965); see Gordon v. Gordon, 59 So. 2d 40, 43-44 (Fla.1952); AGB Oil Co. v. Crystal Exploration & Production Co., 406 So. 2d 1165, 1167 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), rev. denied, 413 So. 2d 875 (Fla.1982). Beyond that, the letter on which the pla…
-
Super Serv. Prods. Corp. v. N. Store Corp., 214 So. 2d 664 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)…dicata and would affirm the summary final judgment adverse to the appellant as to count one. Litt v. Jarson, Fla.App.1957, 97 So. 2d 46; Stadler v. Cherry Hill Developers, Inc., Fla.App.1963, 150 So. 2d 468; Del Vecchio v. Del Vecchio, Fla.App.1965, 179 So. 2d 400; 19 Fla.Jur., Judgments and Decrees, § 120.…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (14 total)
- del Vecchio v. del Vecchio, 143 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 1962)
- Hay v. Lyman A. Salisbury and Ruth Salisbury, 92 Fla. 446 (Fla. 1926)
- Crute v. State, 109 So. 617 (Ala. Ct. App. 1926)
- Stadler v. Cherry Hill Developers, Inc., 150 So. 2d 468 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)
- Wolfson v. Rubin, 52 So.2d 344 (Fla. 1951)
- Litt v. Jarson, 97 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 3d DCA 1957)
- Atl. Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 162 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 1964)
- Del Vecchio v. Del Vecchio, 162 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 1964)
- Robinson v. State, 132 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)
- del Vecchio v. del Vecchio, 132 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)