SOUTHERN BELL TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, A CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
TOWN OF SURFSIDE, FLORIDA, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, 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 remand following a Supreme Court decision that quashed the appellate court's prior judgment. The appellate court vacated its own judgment and adopted the Supreme Court's opinion and judgment as its own, remanding the case for further proceedings consistent with the higher court's ruling.
The District Court of Appeal must vacate its previous judgment, adopt the Supreme Court's opinion and judgment, and remand the case to the chancellor for further orders consistent with the Supreme Court's ruling.
“quashed this court's judgment and remanded the cause to the chancellor for entry of orders consistent with the said opinion and judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida”
Describes the action taken by the Supreme Court of Florida.
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 from the Circuit Court. However, the Supreme Court of Florida reviewed this judgment by …
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
ORDER ON MANDATE
Whereas, the judgment of this court was entered on June 29, 1965 (177 So.2d 557) affirming the order 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 May 18, 1966 (186 So.2d 777) and mandate dated June 3, 1966, now lodged in this court, quashed this court’s judgment and remanded the cause to the chancellor for entry of orders consistent with the said opinion and judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida ;
Now, therefore, it is ordered that the mandate of this court issued on August 23, 1965 is withdrawn, the opinion and judgment filed on June 29, 1965 is vacated, the, said opinion and judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida is herewith made the opinion and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 cause is remanded to the chancellor for entry of orders consistent with the said opinion and j'udgment of the Supreme Court of Florida. 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
-
Slinsky v. State, 232 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970)…ntrary would tend to raise doubt and suspicion in other minds to the prejudice of public confidence in the fair and open administration of justice.’ [Shoultz v. State, Fla. 1958, 106 So. 2d 424.” To like effect is Lowdermilk v. State, Fla.App.1966, 186 So. 2d 816. In Nelson v. State, supra, the jury during its deliberation requested certain trial testimony to be read to them. The request was denied. The Supreme Court there held that this constituted error but was not reversible because the specific testimon…
-
Taylor v. State, 294 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 1974)…w trial was ordered on the ground that even though there were no improper motives involved, lofty purposes are not sufficient to eliminate the prejudice which flowed from such actions. The same prejudice was the turning point in Lowdermilk v. State, 186 So. 2d 816 (Fla.App.1966). However, in this case we find no such prejudice flowing from the conversation nor does the appellant demonstrate any which could be considered a denial of due process or equal protection. As to this point we are bound by the “harmle…
-
Adkins v. Smith, 197 So. 2d 865 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967)…e state’s motion for mistrial absent the consent of the accused. It appears that the trial court and the state attorney misconstrued the holding in the case of Deans v. State, supra. As we have held in the case of Lowdermilk v. State, Fla.App.1966, 186 So. 2d 816, it is the fact that the trial judge examined and passed upon the qualifications of a sworn juror outside the presence of the defendant in violation of F.S.A. § 914.01 that constituted reversible error. The Florida Supreme Court has held that, where…
Authorities Cited
- S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Town OF Surfside, 186 So. 2d 777 (Fla. 1966)
- S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Town OF Surfside, 177 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)