LOUIS DAVID BLUE, PETITIONER,
v.
JEWELL CALDER BLUE, 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 court denied the petition for a writ of certiorari.
The case involved a petition for a writ of certiorari directed to the District Court of Appeal, Second District. The court considered arguments and br…
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
We have for review in this case a petition for a writ of certiorari directed to the District Court of Appeal, Second District. See Blue v. Blue, 172 So.2d 502 (Fla.App.2d).
After having heard argument and studied the briefs herein, we have concluded that the petition for a writ of certiorari should be denied on the authority of Brackin v. Brackin (Fla.), 182 So.2d 1, opinion filed January 12, 1966.
We are not unmindful of the confusion that has arisen due to various constructions that have been given Rule 3.8, F.A.R., 31 F.S.A. As a result, we are contemplating a revision of this rule in the near future to provide that during the pendency of an appeal from an alimony award the amount awarded by the chancellor may be accepted without prejudice to the appeal.
In the meantime, following Brackin v. Brackin, supra, our decision in this case will apply similarly as contemplated in the indicated rule revision.
The petition for writ of certiorari is denied.
TPIORNAL, C. J., and THOMAS, ROBERTS, CALDWELL and ERVIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Schreiber v. Schreiber, 217 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 1968)…with the rule — and apparently still exists in the Third District Court of Appeal, cf. Lyons v. Lyons, Fla.App.3d 1967, 200 So. 2d 817, with the order here reviewed — this court in Brackin v. Brackin, supra, 182 So. 2d 1, and Blue v. Blue, Fla.1966, 183 So. 2d 205, held unequivocally that the rule is permissive only, and not mandatory. In Brackin we said that “When [the rule] is not utilized, its non-use in nowise affects the rights of anyone. Its mere non-use cannot be used as a weapon.” And in Blue we ack…
-
Charter Schs. USA, Inc. v. John DOE NO. 93, 152 So. 3d 657 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)…2d 998, 999 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981) ("A writ of garnishment is one form of final process to enforce a judgment solely for the payment of money. See Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.570(a).”). . A party is "entitled to rely on the Rules as they read.” Nolan v. Eshleman, 183 So. 2d 205, 207 (Fla.1966). "Court rules are construed under the same principles of construction that apply to statutes. Syndicate Properties, Inc. v. Hotel Floridian Co., 94 Fla. 899, 114 So. 441 (1927); Rowe v. State, 394 So. 2d’ 1059 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). On…
-
Helene Leslie Lyons v. Lyons, 200 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)…ose and does not limit the rights of the parties. When it is not utilized, its non-use in nowise affects the rights of anyone. Its mere non-use cannot be used as a weapon.” The Supreme Court further emphasized this ruling in Blue v. Blue, Fla.1966, 183 So. 2d 205, where it held: “We are not unmindful of the confusion that has arisen due to various constructions that have been given Rule 3.8, F.A.R., 31 F.S.A. As a result, we are contemplating a revision of this rule in the near future to provide that during…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Frauken Elizabeth Brackin v. Brackin, 182 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1966)
- Jewell Calder Blue v. Blue, 172 So. 2d 502 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)