L. P. HILL AND HIS WIFE, VIRGINIA HILL, APPELLANTS,
v.
W. C. MCDUFFIE ET AL., APPELLEES

Fla. 1st DCA | 1969-05-27
No. L-293
RAWLS, Acting Chief Judge, and JOHNSON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
223 So. 2d 115 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1969)

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.

Synopsis

The appellate court reversed a lower court's order for further testimony, finding that its previous opinion was clear and unambiguous and that the trial court should comply with the original mandate.


Holding

The appellate court held that the previous opinion was clear and unambiguous, and therefore, no further testimony was required before the trial court complied with the original mandate.


Key Quotes

“it appears to us that the former opinion in this case (196 So. 2d 790, cert. denied, Fla., 203 So. 2d 325) is sufficiently clear and unambiguous as not to require the taking of further testimony by the trial court before complying with the Mandate of this Court”

This quote establishes the court's primary reasoning for reversing the lower court's order.

Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

The appellants sought further testimony from the trial court, which the lower court granted via a post-decretal order. This order was based on the tri…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

This is an interlocutory appeal from a post-decretal order directing the taking of further testimony.

We have reviewed the previous opinion of this court and the record upon which it is based, as well as the record and briefs in the instant case, and it appears to us that the former opinion in this case (196 So.2d 790, cert. denied, Fla., 203 So.2d 325) is sufficiently clear and unambiguous as not to require the taking of further testimony by the trial court before complying with the Mandate of this Court, and, until such time as further damages or causes of action arise, the trial court is directed to comply with the Mandate of this Court.

The order appealed from is reversed and the trial court directed to comply with the Mandate heretofore handed down by this Court on the original appeal cited supra.

RAWLS, Acting Chief Judge, and JOHNSON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw