AMERICAN MOTORISTS INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
L. ERNA FOX, 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.
American Motorists Insurance Company appeals a summary judgment order denying its motion for summary decree and granting the defendant Fox's motion. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that the issues in the present case had already been litigated in a prior case and thus granting summary judgment in Fox's favor.
The appellate court affirmed the lower court's grant of summary judgment to Fox, finding that the circuit court properly exercised its discretion by examining the record of the prior case with the consent of both parties and determining that the matters had already been litigated.
“The lower court could properly examine, on the consent of the parties, the record of Case No. 61 C 377-C in order to determine whether the issues between the parties were, or should have been, determined in a prior suit referred to as Case No. 61 C 377-C.”
Establishes that the lower court had authority to consider the prior case record with parties' consent to determine res judicata/preclusion issues
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe case involves a dispute over an insurance policy (Number TM14411) issued by American Motorists Insurance Company. A prior case (No. 61 C 377-C) ha…
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 Collateral Estoppel cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant appeals the following order:
“This cause was duly presented by counsel for the parties after notice and upon consideration thereof, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Plaintiff’s Motion, filed April 13, 1964, for summary decree, is denied; that defendant’s motion filed June 18, 1964, for summary decree, is granted. Counsel agreed at the hearing that the Court should take notice of the entire record in Case Number 61 C 377-C, lately pending in this Court. The matters sought to be litigated in the present case were or should have been litigated in the former case.
“Copy furnished counsel.
“DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of June, A.D. 1964.
/s/ Jos. S. White Circuit Judge”
The judgment in Case No. 61 C 377-C, referred to in the above order, found as follows :
“1. That the defendant, AMERICAN MOTORISTS INSURANCE COMPANY, is not liable to the Defendants, ROBERT L. HOOPER, HELENE L. KNOTTS, a/k/a HELENE L. HOOPER, GEORGE J. STERZL and MARGARET VON S. *513STERZL, by virtue of the policy of insurance Number TM14411 issued by said defendants.
“2. That the Defendant, AMERICAN MOTORISTS INSURANCE COMPANY, is liable to the Plaintiff, L. ERNA FOX, and said plaintiff shall have and recover from said Defendant, AMERICAN MOTORISTS INSURANCE COMPANY, as and for damages the sum of Five Thousand, Nine Hundred, Thirty-Eight Dollars and Ten Cents ($5,938.10).
“3. That the Plaintiff, L. ERNA FOX, shall have and recover from the Defendant, AMERICAN MOTORISTS INSURANCE COMPANY, as and for reasonable attorney’s fee the sum of Eight Hundred Dollars ($800.00).
“4. That said sums so to be found due by Plaintiff, L. ERNA FOX, from the Defendant, AMERICAN MOTORISTS INSURANCE COMPANY, shall be in full satisfaction of any and all liability or obligation said defendant may have under the terms of the hereinbefore mentioned policy of insurance.
“DONE AND ORDERED at West Palm Beach, Florida, this 27th day of February, 1963.
/s/ James R. Knott Circuit Judge.”
The circuit judge recited in the order appealed that the attorneys agreed at the hearing that the court should take notice of the entire record in Case No. 61 C 377-C, lately pending in the Circuit Court of Palm Beach County.
The order appealed comes to this court with the presumption of correctness. The lower court could properly examine, on the consent of the parties, the record of Case No. 61 C 377-C in order to determine whether the issues between the parties were, or should have been, determined in a prior suit referred to as Case No. 61 C 377-C. Not having the record of the former suit before us, we cannot now reverse the lower court.
Therefore, we affirm the lower court.
ALLEN, C. J., and -SMITH and ANDREWS, JJ., concur.