ROSCOE PADGETT, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
The Florida District Court of Appeal, First District, reconsidered its prior decision in light of a conflicting Supreme Court ruling. The court withdrew its previous opinion and order, reinstating the appeal for further review on its merits.
Yes, this court should reconsider its prior decision and opinion due to the conflicting Supreme Court ruling.
“Since the action taken by this court in its opinion of February 23, 1967, 196 So. 2d 223, and its subsequent order of March 30, 1967, denying a petition for rehearing, the Supreme Court of the State of Florida has handed down its opinion in the case of Harrell v. State, 197 So. 2d 505, which is in direct conflict with the holding of this court in its original opinion in this case.”
Establishes the factual basis for reconsideration: a conflicting Supreme Court ruling.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellee filed a Suggestion for Reconsideration after this court's prior opinion and order denying a petition for rehearing. The Supreme Court of …
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.
SUGGESTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
This matter is before this court again on a Suggestion for Reconsideration filed by the appellee.
Since the action taken by this court in its opinion of February 23, 1967, 196 So.2d 223, and its subsequent order of March 30, 1967, denying a petition for rehearing, the Supreme Court of the State of Florida has handed down its opinion in the case of Harrell v. State, 197 So.2d 505, which is in direct conflict with the holding of this court in its original opinion in this case.
In view of the holding in the Harrell case, supra, this Court does now reconsider its action in denying the petition for rehearing, as well as its opinion of February 23, 1967, and does withdraw its said order and opinion, and the appeal is reinstated for the purpose of further proceeding for review on its merits.
WIGGINTON, Acting C. J., and SPEC-TOR, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Harrell v. State, 197 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 1967)…dings in accordance herewith. THOMAS, ROBERTS and O’CON-NELL, JJ., concur. THORNAL, C. J., dissents on jurisdiction. Would concur on merits. . Bannister v. State, Fla.App.2d Dist.1962, 144 So. 2d 853., Cf. Padgett v. State, Fla.App.1st Dist.1967, 197 So. 2d 864, in apparent conflict with Bannister and with the decision of this Court in the case sub judice. . Under Rule 3.13 F.A.R., 31 F.S.A. appeals, once taken, may be dismissed only by action taken in the appellate court and then only under conditions an…
Authorities Cited
- Harrell v. State, 197 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 1967)
- Roscoe Padgett v. State, 196 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967)