CORAL CONSTRUCTION CORP., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
DEATH A FLEEMAN ARLT, T. A. BUCHANAN, AS SHERIFF OF METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, AND THEODORE WILISCH, APPELLEES
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 Florida District Court of Appeal vacated its prior judgment and reinstated a trial court's order, following a directive from the Florida Supreme Court. The Supreme Court had quashed the appellate court's reversal, ordering the reinstatement of the lower court's decision.
Yes, the District Court of Appeal must follow the Supreme Court's mandate. The District Court vacated its previous judgment and reinstated the trial court's order.
“quashed this court's judgment with directions to reinstate the order of the trial court”
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 reversed an order from the Circuit Court for Dade County. However, the Florida Supreme Court, upon reviewi…
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 July 6, 1965 (177 So.2d 890) reversing an 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, Arlt v. Buchanan, 190 So.2d 575, and mandate dated October 14, 1966, now lodged in this court, quashed this court’s judgment with directions to reinstate the order of the trial court;
Now, Therefore, It is Ordered that the mandate of this court issued in this cause on September 10, 1965 is withdrawn, the judgment of this court filed July 6, 1965 is vacated, the opinion and judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida is herewith made the opinion and judgment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 reinstated and 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
-
Alvarez v. State, 827 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…. Marathon, 97 A.D.2d 650, 469 N.Y.S.2d 178, 179 (N.Y.App.Div.1983); State v. Butterfield, 784 P. 2d 153, 157 (Utah 1989). See also H.H. Henry, Exclusion of Public During Criminal Trial, 48 A.L.R.2d 1436, § 10 (1956). Furthermore, in Dixon v. State, 191 So. 2d 94, 96 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966), the second district summarily rejected the appellant’s claim of a violation of his right to a public trial because no objection was made. Most recently, our supreme court pointed to the lack of objection as a reason why there…
-
Marianna J. Anthony v. State, 246 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971)…ty of exercising caution in admitting evidence of extraneous and disconnected offenses not clearly relevant to the facts in the case being tried. Winkfield v. State, Fla.App. 1968, 209 So. 2d 468; Green v. State, supra; Dixon v. State, Fla.App.1966, 191 So. 2d 94; Harris v. State, Fla.App.1966, 183 So. 2d 291; San Fratello v. State, Fla.App.1963, 154 So. 2d 327; Sciortino v. State, Fla.App.1959, 115 So. 2d 93; Wilson v. State, Fla.App.1965, 171 So. 2d 903; Farnell v. State, Fla.App.1968, 214 So. 2d 753; Sike…
-
Jones v. State, 883 So. 2d 369 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)…partial closure takes place without objection this does not constitute fundamental error. The majority view across the country is that a failure to object to a closure of the trial waives the right to a public trial. Furthermore, in Dixon v. State, 191 So. 2d 94, 96 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966), the second district summarily rejected the appellant’s claim of a violation of his right to a public trial because no objection was made. Most recently, our supreme court pointed to the lack of objection as a reason why there…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Leatha Fleeman Arlt v. Buchanan, 190 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 1966)
- Coral Constr. Corp. v. Leatha Fleeman Arlt, 177 So. 2d 890 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)