FLORIDA DRY CLEANING & LAUNDRY BOARD
v.
EVERGLADES LAUNDRY, INC., ET AL.
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 reversed a trial court's order staying an injunction because the court lacked jurisdiction to enter the stay order after notice of appeal had been filed in a related case.
The trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter the stay order because the entry of notice of appeal divested the trial court of jurisdiction over the injunctive order, rendering the stay order void.
“when the Circuit Court on the 21st day of December, 1938, attempted to stay the injunctive order or decree made on December 15, 1938, the Circuit Court had lost jurisdiction of that order by reason of the entry of appeal to the Supreme Court and was therefore, without power to make the order entered”
Establishes the fundamental principle that trial courts lose jurisdiction once notice of appeal is filed
The Circuit Court of Dade County entered an injunctive order on December 15, 1938. On December 21, 1938, after notice of appeal had been filed in a re…
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 case is before us pursuant to our mandate of May 9th, 1939, being recalled for the purpose of entering a proper judgment herein.
On April 21, 1939, we filed and entered our'opinion and judgment in the case of Florida Dry Cleaning & Laundry Board, an instrumentality of the State of Florida, v. Economy Cash and Carry Laundry, Inc., et al. In that case we reversed an order of the Circuit Court of Dade County granting a temporary injunction against the appellant. See opinion filed on that date.
In this case appeal is from an order entered on December 21, 1938, as follows:
“This cause came on to be he ird on December 21, 1938, after due notice to counsel for the plaintiff, upon' the motion of certain of the defendants, filed herein on December 21, 1938, for the entry herein of a stay order.
*647“Upon consideration of the said motion and the argument of counsel for the respective parties thereon, it is Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed that the said motion be, and it is granted; and, it having been made to appear to the Court by and from the said motion that E. F. P. Brigham, Esquire, solicitor for the movants, will return to the City of Miami on or about January 10, 1939, it is Further Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed that that certain injunctive order or decree made herein on December 15, 1938, and recorded on December 16, 1938, in Chancery Order Book 489, at page 93, shall not be in force or effect until after January 20, 1939.
“And it is Further Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed that the said injunctive order or decree be, and it is, modified to the extent herein and hereby provided.
“Done and Ordered in Chambers at the City of Miami, Florida, December 21, 1938.”
This order was entered subsequent to the entry of the notice of appeal in the case of Economy Cash & Carry Cleaners, Inc., et al., v. Florida Dry Cleaning & Laundry Board from that order which we have this day affirmed, with directions, in disposing of that case.
It, therefore, appears that when the Circuit Court on the 21st day of December, 1938, attempted to stay the injunctive order or decree made on December 15, 1938, the Circuit Court had lost jurisdiction of that order by reason of the entry of appeal to the Supreme Court and was therefore, without power to make the order entered. For that reason', the order appealed from must be reversed.
So ordered.
Terrell, C. J., and Whitfield, Buford, Chapman and Thomas, J. J., concur.
Justice Brown not participating as authorized by Sec*648tion 4687, Compiled General Laws of 1927, and Rule 21-A of the Rules of this Court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Waltham A. Condo. Ass'n v. Vill. Mgmt., Inc., 330 So. 2d 227 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)…the appellate court’s jurisdiction or render moot its labors. This is a somewhat strained construction. . A similar case, which omitted discussion of the governing rule of law, is Florida Dry Cleaning and Laundry Board v. Everglades Laundry, Inc., 138 Fla. 646, 190 So., 33 (1939). That case held that it was error for the trial court to modify an order after the perfection of an interlocutory order therefrom. . A similar observation was made by the court in Hirsch v. Sirsch, 309 So. 2d 47, 60 (Fla.App.3rd…
-
Robinson v. Fla. Dry Cleaning & Laundry Bd., 141 Fla. 899 (Fla. 1940)…0; State ex rel Florida Dry Cleaning & Laundry Board v. Atkinson, 136 Fla. 528, 188 So. 834; Economy Cash & Carry Cleaners v. Florida Dry Cleaning & Laundry Board, 138 Fla. 642, 190 So. 31; Florida Dry Cleaning & Laundry Board v. Everglades Laundry, 138 Fla. 646, 190 So. 33. It is contended on this record that the grounds or reasons assigned for the unconstitutionality of Chapter 17894, supra, were not presented and were not considered or determined by Court when the Act was before the Court as shown by the…
-
Bradenton Grp., Inc. v. Dep't of Legal Affairs, 701 So. 2d 1170 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)…before us. .Report No. 1 of the Twelfth Statewide Grand Jury Regarding the Operation of Commercial Bingo Halls in the State of Florida, p. 7, S.Ct. Case No. 83,964 (Oct. 25, 1995). . Cf. Florida Dry Cleaning and Laundry Bd. v. Everglades Laundry, 138 Fla. 646, 647, 190 So. 33, 33-34 (1939); Thursby.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence