JOHN H. QUIGLEY AND CONSTANCE M. QUIGLEY, HIS WIFE, JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY, APPELLANTS,
v.
KENNEDY & ELY INSURANCE, INC., A FLORIDA 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.
The Florida District Court of Appeal vacated its prior judgment and adopted the Florida Supreme Court's decision, remanding the case for further proceedings. This action followed the Supreme Court quashing the appellate court's initial affirmation of the trial court's judgment.
The District Court of Appeal must vacate its prior judgment, adopt the Supreme Court's opinion and judgment as its own, and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's decision.
“By our prior opinion, Quigley v. Kennedy & Ely Insurance, Inc., Fla.App., 202 So. 2d 610, we affirmed the judgment of the Circuit Court of Dade County.”
This quote establishes the prior action taken by the District Court of Appeal.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe case involved an appeal of a judgment from the Circuit Court of Dade County. The District Court of Appeal had previously affirmed the trial court'…
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.
ORDER ON MANDATE
This cause recurs for consideration upon the mandate of the Supreme Court of the State of Florida pursuant to the opinion and judgment of that court quashing a prior opinion and judgment of this court. Quigley v. Kennedy & Ely Insurance, Inc., 207 So.2d 431, Supreme Court opinion filed January 24, 1968. By our prior opinion, Quigley v. Kennedy & Ely Insurance, Inc., Fla.App., 202 So.2d 610, we affirmed the judgment of the Circuit Court of Dade County.
In accord with the directive of the judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida, our mandate issued in this cause on October 11, 1967 is withdrawn, the prior opinion and judgment of this court filed September 19, 1967 is hereby set aside and vacated, the said opinion and judgment of the Supreme Court of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 trial court for further proceedings and disposition in accord with the said cited decision.
It is so ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (17 total)
-
The Canal Auth. of the State of Fla. v. Miller, 243 So. 2d 131 (Fla. 1970)…eater quantity of property, or greater interest or estate therein, than is necessary to serve the particular public use for which the property is being acquired. Wilton v. St. Johns County, 98 Fla. 26, 123 So. 527 (1929); Staplin v. Canal Authority, 208 So. 2d 853 (1st D.C.A.Fla.1968). In order to insure the property rights of the citizens of the state against abuse of the condemning authority’s power it is imperative that the necessity for the exercise of the eminent domain power be ascertained and establis…
-
City OF Jacksonville v. Griffin, 346 So. 2d 988 (Fla. 1977)…isturbed in the absence of illegality, bad faith or gross abuse of discretion. Inland Waterway Development Co. v. City of Jacksonville, 38 So. 2d 676 (Fla.1948); Wilton v. St. Johns County, 98 Fla. 26, 123 So. 527 (1929); Staplin v. Canal Authority, 208 So. 2d 853 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968). Although it will not be presumed that a condemning authority abused its discretion or acted illegally or in bad faith in making its finding of reasonable necessity in a resolution of taking, such authority, in order to meet its…
-
Cent. & S. Fla. Flood Control Dist. v. WYE River Farms, Inc., 297 So. 2d 323 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)…d not be overcome unless it can be shown that the determination was motivated by bad faith, fraud or constitutes a gross abuse of discretion. Sibley v. Volusia County, 1941, 147 Fla. 256, 2 So. 2d 578; Staplin v. The Canal Authority, 1st D.C.A.1968, 208 So. 2d 853. Insufficiency of construction plans and specifications is not and has never been included among the grounds for overturning the necessity of a taking, otherwise properly prosecuted, and we now so hold. Although Appellees rely heavily on the South…
Previewing 3 of 17 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- THE Florida BAR v. Godfrey K. Newman, 207 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 1968)
- Schwartz v. Appleby, 202 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967)