ELMER H. JONES AND AMELIA KNOWLES, APPELLANTS,
v.
JEAN CHRISTINA, 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.
This case involves a procedural order from the Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District, responding to a mandate from the Florida Supreme Court. The Supreme Court had reviewed and partially reversed a prior decision of the District Court of Appeal, but ultimately affirmed the trial court's order on different grounds.
The District Court of Appeal vacated and withdrew its prior opinion and judgment to the extent it conflicted with the Supreme Court's views, making the Supreme Court's opinion and judgment the judgment of the District Court of Appeal, while adhering to its original judgment where not in conflict.
“WHEREAS, the judgment of this court was entered on March 23, 1965 (172 So. 2d 855) affirming the order of the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Dade County, Florida, in the above styled cause; and WHEREAS, on review of this court's judgment, by certiorari, the Supreme Court of Florida by its opinion and judgment filed March 2, 1966 (184 So. 2d 181) and mandate dated April 4, 1966, now lodged in this court, reversed a portion of this court's decision but, for different reasons, as set forth in the said opinion and judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida, affirmed this court's judgment affirming the order of the trial court sought to be reviewed ;”
This quote describes the procedural history and the Supreme Court's action on certiorari, setting the stage for the current order.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe District Court of Appeal had previously affirmed an order of the trial court. The Supreme Court of Florida, upon review by certiorari, reversed a …
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.
WHEREAS, the judgment of this court was entered on March 23, 1965 (172 So.2d 855) affirming the order of the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Dade County, Florida, in the above styled cause; and
WHEREAS, on review of this court’s judgment, by certiorari, the Supreme Court of Florida by its opinion and judgment filed March 2, 1966 (184 So.2d 181) and mandate dated April 4, 1966, now lodged in this court, reversed a portion of this court’s decision but, for different reasons, as set forth in the said opinion and judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida, affirmed this court’s judgment affirming the order of the trial court sought to be reviewed ;
NOW, THEREFORE, It is Ordered that the mandate of this court issued on April 8, 1965 is withdrawn, the opinion and judgment of this court filed March 23, 1965, insofar as it is in conflict with or fails to conform to the views expressed in the opinion and judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida, dated March 2, 1966, aforesaid, is withdrawn and vacated, the said opinion and judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida is herewith made the opinion and judgment of this court and the opinion and judgment of this court, except as withdrawn and vacated as aforesaid, is adhered to; costs allowed shall be taxed in the circuit court (Rule 3.16(b), Florida Appellate Rules, 31 F.S.A.).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hall v. Hall, 200 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)…00.00 allowance as attorneys’ fees for the wife’s attorneys in a divorce action was reduced to $3,000.00, which sum the court found ample for the services which the record disclosed were performed by the attorneys.) ; Muskin v. Muskin, Fla.App.1966, 184 So. 2d 923. ($5,-000.00 temporary attorney’s fees reduced to $1,500.00, which the court found to be a maximum fee which should be allowed, notwithstanding the financial circumstances of the husband). Therefore, the order here under review is reversed, with di…
-
Nudelman v. Waltraud Nudelman, 542 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…t of fees for services which have already been rendered, it necessarily has no application to temporary fees awardable under section 61.071, Florida Statutes (1987) for representation during the future course of the litigation. Cf. Muskin v. Muskin, 184 So. 2d 923, 924 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966) (rule requiring expert testimony for setting attorney’s fees not applicable “in every case” to award of fees pendente lite). Furthermore, the husband has failed to establish error in the amount of temporary fees assessed. See…
-
Rokicki v. Ewa Rokicki, 660 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…rt testimony was not required to support an award for interim fees for services yet to be performed. Nudelman v. Nudelman, 542 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); see also Martin v. Martin, 561 So. 2d 1266, 1266 n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Muskin v. Muskin, 184 So. 2d 923, 924 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966). The husband argues alternatively that because neither the wife nor her counsel [*364] testified as to their fee arrangement, the amount awarded was unsupported by substantial competent evidence. However, the husband made no…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Jones v. Christina, 184 So. 2d 181 (Fla. 1966)
- Jones v. Christina, 172 So. 2d 855 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)