GEORGIA H. BANORES, APPELLANT,
v.
ALFRED S. AUSTIN AND R. A. AUSTIN, D/B/A AUSTIN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, AND ROY R. HORST, APPELLEES
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Loss Of Consortium cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant argues that the denial to a wife of damages for loss of consortium while our law allows them to a similarly-deprived husband violates the equal protection clause of our federal constitution, U. S. Const. Amend. XIV, and Section 4 of the Declaration of Rights of the Florida constitutions, F.S.A. As a legal matter, Wilson v. Redding, Fla.App.1962, 145 So.2d 252, and Ripley v. Ewell, Fla.1952, 61 So.2d 420, seem to preclude recovery. But the constitutional questions are squarely raised and accordingly we lack jurisdiction under Fla.Const. Art. V, Section 5. Section 4 vests in the Supreme Court jurisdiction of appeals in which the trial court has construed a controlling provision of the state or federal constitution. Section 5 gives us a residual jurisdiction.
Appeal transferred to the Supreme Court.
HOBSON, C. J., and LILES, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Banores v. Austin, 248 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 1971)…ADKINS, Justice. This is an appeal from the Circuit Court of Hillsborough County, having been transferred to this Court from the District Court of Appeal, Second District, 240 So. 2d 850. Stephen E. Banores was injured due to the negligence of the Appellees and recovered a final judgment. This judgment was satisfied by payment. Thereupon, the Appellant, wife of Stephen E. Banores, brought suit for damages due to loss of consortium…
Authorities Cited
- Ripley v. Ewell, 61 So.2d 420 (Fla. 1952)
- Wilson v. Redding, 145 So. 2d 252 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)