HENRY E. COLEMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
SYLVIA J. COLEMAN, 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 maneuver where the appellate court, following a Supreme Court mandate, vacated its prior judgment and reversed the trial court's order. The Supreme Court directed the dismissal of the husband's application, which the appellate court then implemented.
Yes, the appellate court must comply with the Supreme Court's mandate, vacating its prior judgment and reversing the trial court's order to dismiss the husband's application.
“quashed this court's judgment and remanded the cause with directions that an order be entered granting the petitioner-husband's motion to dismiss the "application" of the respondent”
Describes the Supreme Court's directive to the appellate court.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellate court had previously affirmed a trial court order. However, the Florida Supreme Court, upon review, quashed the appellate court's judgme…
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 November 9, 1965 (180 So.2d 199) affirming the order of the Circuit Court 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 September 28, 1966 (190 So.2d 332) and mandate dated October 14, 1966, now lodged in this court, quashed this court’s judgment and remanded the cause with directions that an order be entered granting the petitioner-husband’s motion to dismiss the “application” of the respondent;
Now, therefore, It is Ordered that the mandate of this court issued on December 7, 1965 is withdrawn, the judgment of this court filed November 9, 1965 is vacated, the opinion and judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida is herewith made the opinion and judgment of this court and the order of the trial court appealed from in this cause is reversed with directions to enter an order granting the plaintiff-husband’s motion to dismiss the “application” of the defendant. 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
-
LEE v. Florida, 392 U.S. 378 (U.S. 1968)…g short of mandatory exclusion of the illegal evidence will compel respect for the federal law “in the only effectively available way — by removing the incentive to disregard it.” Elkins v. United States, 364 U. S., at 217. Reversed. Lee v. State, 191 So. 2d 84. 389 U. S. 1033. Issues under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments were also presented in the petition for certiorari. We do not reach those issues. The record does not show how or why this house was made available to the Orlando police. 191 So.…
-
United States v. Harrelson, 754 F.2d 1153 (5th Cir. 1985)…on is intended to reflect existing law. See Katz v. United States, 88 S.Ct. 507, 389 U.S. 347 [19 L.Ed.2d 576] (1967). Compare United States v. South Eastern Underwriters Assn., 64 S.Ct. 1162, 322 U.S. 533 [88 L.Ed. 1440] (1944) with Lee v. Florida, 191 So. 2d 84 ([Fla.App.] 1966), certiorari granted, [389 U.S. 1033, 19 L.Ed.2d 820] Jan. 15, 1968, No. 174, 1967 Term. The person’s subjective intent or the place where the communication is uttered is not necessarily the controlling factor. Compare Linnell v. Li…
-
United States v. Susan Paul (79-5061), 614 F.2d 115 (6th Cir. 1980)…on is intended to reflect existing law. See Katz v. United States, 88 S.Ct. 507, 389 U.S. 347 [19 L.Ed.2d 576] (1967). Compare United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Assn., 64 S.Ct. 1162, 322 U.S. 533 [88 L.Ed. 1440] (1944) with Lee v. Florida, 191 So. 2d 84 ([Fla. App.] 1966), certiorari granted [392 U.S. 378, 88 S.Ct. 2096, 20 L.Ed.2d 1166], Jan. 15, 1968, No. 174, 1967 Term. The per [*119] son’s subjective intent or the place where the communication is uttered is not necessarily the controlling facto…
Authorities Cited
- Coleman v. Coleman, 180 So. 2d 199 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Ploof Transfer Co., Inc. v. Mason, 190 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 1966)
- Coleman v. Coleman, 190 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 1966)