I. MICHAEL, A/K/A MICKEY MICHAEL, APPELLANT,
v.
NATHAN SCHEKTER, 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 history where the Florida Supreme Court reviewed a decision by the District Court of Appeal, ultimately quashing the appellate court's judgment and remanding for an affirmation of the trial court's summary judgment.
The District Court of Appeal held that its prior judgment was incorrect and that the trial court's summary judgment should be affirmed, as mandated by the Florida Supreme Court.
“quashed this court's judgment and remanded the cause for the entry of a judgment affirming the summary judgment of the trial court”
This quote describes the directive from the Supreme Court of Florida to the District Court of Appeal.
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 reversed a summary judgment granted by the trial court. The Supreme Court of Florida, upon review by certi…
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 Vacating Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
Whereas, the judgment of this court was entered on June IS, 196S (176 So.2d 581) reversing the summary judgment of the Circuit Court of 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 9, 1966 (184 So.2d 641) and mandate dated April 20, 1966, now lodged in this court, quashed this court’s judgment and remanded the cause for the entry of a judgment affirming the summary judgment of the trial court;
Now, therefore, It is Ordered that the mandate of this court issued in this cause on July 23, 1965 is withdrawn, the opinion and judgment of this court entered on June 15, 1965 is vacated, the said opinion and judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida is herewith made the opinion and judgment of this court, and the summary judgment of the circuit court appealed from in this cause is affirmed. 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
-
State v. Rouse, 239 So. 2d 79 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970)…he defense of entrapment arises from decency, good faith, fairness and justice, and the conduct of state agents as well as the defendants’ disposition must be considered in determining whether the defense is available. Thomas v. State, Fla.App.1966, 185 So. 2d 745. In Koptyra, supra, the second district stated “In determining whether or not there is evidence tending to prove entrapment, the distinction to be observed on the facts in this case is whether there was evidence tending to show that the inspector e…
-
Richert v. State, 338 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)…320 So. 2d 420 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975); State v. Rouse, 239 So. 2d 79 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970); State v. Liptak, supra. The only Florida case in which an entrapment defense was found to require a judgment of acquittal as a matter of law was Thomas v. State, 185 So. 2d 745 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1966). The appellate court there held that entrapment was established as a matter of law by undisputed evidence that defendant, having been released on bail after being arrested and charged with similar violation, was induced by state…
-
Nadell v. State, 229 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)…of fact. See especially: Wall v. United States (5 Cir. 1933) 65 F. 2d 993; Carter v. State, Fla.1963, 155 So. 2d 787; Annot. 33 A.L.R.2d 883, 902 (1954). Compare: DiSalvo v. United States (8 Cir. 1924) 2 F. 2d 222; and Thomas v. State, Fla.App.1966, 185 So. 2d 745 (in both cases,, uncontradicted testimony by the defendant which demonstrated that entrapment had occurred entitled him to dismissal). The judge, in his capacity as trier of fact, resolved the issue against the defendant and we must therefore affir…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Schekter v. Michael, 184 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 1966)
- Michael v. Schekter, 176 So. 2d 581 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)