JERLES INVESTMENT COMPANY, INC., E. B. LEATHERMAN, CLERK, CIRCUIT COURT, DADE COUNTY, AND S. H. LESTER,
v.
MAE WELLS, ALSO KNOWN AS LILLIE MAE WELLS, A WIDOW, INDIVIDUALLY, AND TOGETHER WITH RICHARD WELLS, JR., AS HEIRS OF R. M. WELLS, DECEASED, E. B. MALONE, TRADING AND DOING BUSINESS AS MIAMI MATTRESS MFG. CO., AND LILLIE MAE WELLS, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS GUARDIAN FOR THE SAID RICHARD WELLS, JR., HER SON, A MINOR, AND D. C. COLEMAN, AS SHERIFF OF DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF R. M. WELLS, DECEASED
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 an application for supersedeas, finding that granting it would render the appeal moot and adversely affect the status of the property in dispute.
No, a supersedeas should be denied if granting it would render the appeal moot and materially change the status of the property in dispute to the detriment of a party's asserted rights.
“The purpose of supersedeas is to preserve the status of the res pending litigation in the Appellate Court.”
This quote defines the fundamental purpose of a supersedeas.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe case involves an application for supersedeas, a legal mechanism to preserve the status quo of property pending appeal. The specific facts leading …
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.
This cause came on to be heard on application for Supersedeas and was thoroughly presented by counsel on both sides. The purpose of supersedeas is to preserve the status of the res pending litigation in the Appellate Court. If the record presents a controverted *137question for decision material to complainant’s right in the res and supersedeas will preserve that right, it should he granted but on the other hand if it is shown that it permits the status of the res out of which the right grows to be changed adversely to complainant’s right, it should be denied.
To grant the supersedeas in this case would render moot the question involved in the order appealed from and would materially change the status of the res as affecting the asserted rights of cross complainants in it. Hathaway v. Munroe, 97 Fla. 28, 119 So. 149.
The application is accordingly denied.
It is so ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Sundie v. Haren, 253 So. 2d 857 (Fla. 1971)…. ROBERTS, C. J., and DREW (Retired), J., concur in judgment. ERVIN, J., dissents. . 73 So. 2d 905 (Fla.1954). . Haren v. Sundie, 219 So. 2d 731 (Fla.App. 3rd 1969). . 233 So. 2d 417, 418 (Fla.App.3rd 1970). . 73 So. 2d 905, 906 (Fla.1954). . 130 Fla. 136, 177 So. 313 (1938). . 184 So. 2d 916 (Fla.App.3rd 1966). . Fla. East Coast Railway Co. v. State, 77 Fla. 571, 82 So. 136 (1919). . 45 Fla. 468, 34 So. 255 (1903). . Accord, Bridier v. Burns, Fla., 4 So. 2d 853 (1941). . Martin County v. Hansen…
-
Powell v. Am. Sumatra Tobacco Co. & O. L. Smith, 154 Fla. 227 (Fla. 1944)…it had never been enacted.” What is and what is not negligence in a particular case is generally a question of fact to be settled by a jury under appropriate legal instructions by the trial court. See Weis-Patterson Lbr. Co. v. King, 131 Fla. 342, 177 So. 313. Negligence is always a jury question to be determined from the facts and circumstances of the case. See Orr v. Avon Florida Citrus Corp., 130 Fla. 306, 177 So. 612. Negligence is a jury question if the same can reasonably be established by direct o…
-
Acme Elec., Inc. v. Travis, 218 So. 2d 788 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969)…what is not negligence in a particular case is generally a question for the jury and not for the court. It is always a question for the jury when the measure of duty is ordinary and reasonable care.” Weis-Patterson Lumber Co. v. King, 131 Fla. 342, 177 So. 313 (1937). Another contention made by the appellant in this appeal is that, in the above evidentiary situation and at the time he suffered his injuries, the plaintiff was a “special employee” of the defendant and hence his exclusive remedy against the…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Fons A. Hathaway v. Munroe, 97 Fla. 28 (Fla. 1929)