LOUIS K. SMITH AND CATHERIN Y. SMITH, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS MAN AND WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, A FOREIGN INSURANCE COMPANY AUTHORIZED TO DO BUSINESS IN FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Mandate Of The Supreme Court cases and more on FLexlaw
This cause recurs for consideration upon the mandate of the Supreme Court of Florida pursuant to the opinion and judgment of that court filed February 4, 1970 (231 So.2d 193), disapproving the concluding paragraph with directions to eliminate said paragraph of the prior opinion and judgment of this court in this cause (Fla.App., 220 So.2d 389).
In accord with the directive of the judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida, the concluding paragraph of our prior opinion and judgment is vacated, the said opinion and judgment is amended in accordance with the opinion of the Supreme Court and the cause is remanded to the trial court for its determination of allowable damages, under the express terms of the contract relating to loss occasioned by the temporary loss of use of the car.1
It is so ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Robustiano Puga & Medmold, Inc. v. Suave Shoe Corp., 417 So. 2d 678 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…clerk); State ex rel. Poe v. Allen, 196 So. 2d 745 (Fla.1967) (assignments of error and directions to the clerk); Greyhound Corp. v. Carswell, 181 So. 2d 638 (Fla.1966) (directions to the clerk); accord F. A. Chastain Construction, Inc. v. Stanford, 232 So. 2d 421 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970) (assignments of error). I do not read these cases, however, to require the presence of such papers as a sine qua non to salvage the notice of appeal, where, as here, an intent to appeal from the final judgment can be discerned fro…1 / 2
-
Dixie Farms, Inc. v. The HERTZ Corp., 343 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…y, bolsters appellant’s contention that the issue had not been dealt with by the jury during the trial. O’Brien v. Elder, 250 F. 2d 275 (5th Cir. 1957); Smith v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 231 So. 2d 193 (Fla.1970), conformed to 232 So. 2d 421 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970). In any event, we hold that appellee has failed to meet its necessary burden in proving that the coverage issue was actually litigated and therefore barred by the above doctrines from relitigation. Stone v. Stone, 111 So. 2d 486…
-
Bennett v. Zager, 387 So. 2d 382 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…gard the technical error and to treat the notice as one properly directed to that judgment. State ex rel. Poe v. Allen, 196 So. 2d 745 (Fla.1967); Greyhound Corp. v. Carswell, 181 So. 2d 638 (Fla.1966); F. A. Chastain Construction, Inc. v. Stanford, 232 So. 2d 421 (Fla.3d DCA 1970). Moreover, I detect no basis for the conclusion that the appellee was in any way misled or otherwise prejudiced by the mistaken designation. She has evinced no intention to cross-appeal any adverse ruling below, and was not in an…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Smith v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 231 So. 2d 193 (Fla. 1970)
- PAN Am. World Airways, Inc. v. Anthony W. Maggio & the Fla. Indus. Comm'n, 231 So. 2d 193 (Fla. 1970)
- Smith v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 220 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)