DANIEL LARRY PIZZI AND SHERIAN PIZZI, APPELLANTS,
v.
CENTRAL BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, A BANKING CORPORATION ET AL., APPELLEES

Fla. 3d DCA | 1971-09-16
No. 70-300
Before PEARSON, CHARLES CARROLL and BARKDULL, JJ.
251 So. 2d 910 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1971) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

Topics

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Mandate cases and more on FLexlaw


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

ORDER ON MANDATE

PER CURIAM.

Whereas, the judgment of this court was entered on December 1, 1970 (241 So.2d 450) affirming the order of dismissal of the Circuit Court of Dade County, Florida, in the above styled cause; and

Whereas, on review of this court’s judgment, by certiorari, the Supreme Court of Florida, by its opinion and judgment filed June 30, 1971 (250 So.2d 895), and mandate now lodged in this court quashed this court’s judgment and remanded the cause for further proceedings not inconsistent with the said opinion and judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida;

Now, therefore, It is Ordered that the mandate of this court issued in this cause on December 18, 1970 is withdrawn, the opinion and judgment of this court filed December 1, 1970 is vacated, the opinion and judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida is herewith made the opinion and judgment of this court, and the order of the circuit court appealed in this cause dismissing the plaintiff’s second amended complaint in favor of the defendant Central Bank & Trust Co. is reversed for further proceedings. Costs allowed shall be taxed in the trial court (Rule 3.16, subd. b, Florida Appellate Rules, 32 F.S.A.).


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • E. B. v. J. M. C., 48 Fla. Supp. 82 (Polk Cty. Cir. Ct. 1978)
    …cause of action for child support from their alleged natural father. Assuming as we must in a motion to dismiss that all the allegations of the complaint can be factually proven. Pizzi v. Central Bank and Trust Company, 250 So. 2d 895, conformed to 251 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 1971), the defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ amended complaint is denied for the following reasons — The laws of this state governing the remedies for the enforcement of support obligations for dependent children by responsible parent…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw