SHIRLEY ANN SIMONET, APPELLANT,
v.
RICHARD H. SIMONET, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Temporary Relief cases and more on FLexlaw
This is a divorce case with the wife appealing from certain interlocutory orders.
As concerns the award of temporary alimony, child support and other temporary relief, it appears that the trial court did not abuse its discretion or commit reversible error, Blue v. Blue, Fla.1953, 66 So.2d 228. Thus, the order dated June 26, 1970, should be affirmed.
As concerns the court s action in denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss, based upon the authority of Simkins v. Simkins, Fla.App.1969, 219 So.2d 724, and the recognition of the plaintiff’s Fifth Amendment privilege as concerns certain interrogatories, we believe that the trial court proceeded improperly in light of the case of Cotton v. Cotton, Fla.App.1970, 239 So.2d 865, and the case of Minor v. Minor, Supreme Court, 240 So.2d 301, filed October 21, 1970, which cases were decided subsequently to the instant trial court decision. Thus these rulings reflected in the order dated June 23, 1970, should be reversed and the case remanded to the trial court for reconsideration in the light of the Cotton and Minor cases, supra.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part.
WALDEN, REED and OWEN, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Carey English v. McCRARY, 348 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 1977)…hing already done. It cannot be used to revoke an order already entered. State ex rel. Harris v. McCauley, 297 So. 2d 825 (Fla. 1974), State ex rel. R. C. Motor Lines, Inc. v. Boyd et al., 114 So. 2d 169 (Fla. 1959), State ex rel. Shailer v. Booher, 241 So. 2d 720 (Fla. 4th DCA, 1970). Where proceedings sought to be prohibited have been completed and matters therein disposed of, prohibition may not be used for the sole purpose of establishing principles to govern future cases. This court explicitly stated in…
-
State of Fla. ex rel. Dep't OF Gen. Servs. v. Willis, 344 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)…. The office of the writ of prohibition, as the effect of our order to show cause indicates, “is to prohibit the doing of something that has not been done rather than to compel the undoing of something already done.” State ex rel. Shailer v. Booher, 241 So. 2d 720, 722 (Fla.4th DCA 1970). The circuit court’s lack of jurisdiction is not remedied by the allegation that Ginn and the others sue to vindicate not only their private substantial interests but also their interests as citizens and taxpayers. The subst…
-
State of Fla. ex rel. Richard E. Gerstein v. The Honorable N. Joseph Durant, Jr., 348 So. 2d 405 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…n is quashed. It is so ordered. . We originally treated these proceedings as a suggestion for writ of prohibition and issued a rule nisi. After a full hearing, however, we discharge the rule as improvidently issued. State ex rel. Shatter v. Booher, 241 So. 2d 720 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970).…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Blue v. Blue, 66 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 1953)
- Simkins v. Luisa Victoria Simkins, 219 So. 2d 724 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
- Del O'Neal v. State, 240 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 1970)
- Minor v. Basil F. Minor, 240 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 1970)
- Lockwood v. State, 239 So. 2d 865 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970)