STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
EDWARD WILLIAMS, RESPONDENT
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.
The Florida Supreme Court denied the State's petition for a writ of certiorari, finding no jurisdictional conflict between district court decisions after the Supreme Court had already quashed the decision in a prior, related case.
No, a jurisdictional conflict does not exist if the Supreme Court has already resolved the issue in a prior case, even if the district courts' decisions initially appeared to conflict.
“The two cited decisions of the district courts do in fact conflict directly on the same point of law.”
Acknowledges the initial appearance of a conflict between the district courts' rulings.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe State petitioned for a writ of certiorari, alleging a conflict between two district court decisions on a point of law. One of these decisions was …
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 Writ Of Certiorari cases and more on FLexlaw
The State petitions for writ of certi-orari contending that the subject decision of District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, reported at 184 So.2d 525, is in direct conflict with the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Second District, in Rollins v. State, Fla.App., 179 So.2d 377. . The . two cited decisions of the district courts do in fact conflict directly on the same point of law.
However, on petition for writ of certi-orari in this court, we quashed the decision of the district court in Rollins v. State, supra. Rollins v. State of Florida, Fla., 194 So.2d 247, opinion filed January 25, 1967. The views expressed in our opinion are consistent with those expressed by the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, in the opinion under attack in this cause. Therefore, there is no longer a jurisdictional conflict in decisions warranting granting of the petition in this case.
For the foregoing reasons the petition for writ of certiorari is denied.
It is so ordered.
THORNAL, C. J., and DREW, O’CON-NELL, CALDWELL and ERVIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Bell v. State, 179 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Williams v. State, 184 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966)
- Kearney v. City OF Fort Pierce, 194 So. 2d 247 (Fla. 1967)