THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
EARL JACKSON CARROLL, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Vacating Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
ORDER ON MANDATE
Whereas, the judgment of this court was entered on October 28, 1970 (240 So.2d 205) reversing the order of dismissal of the Criminal Court of Record for Dade County, Florida, and
Whereas, on review of this court’s order, by certiorari, the Supreme Court of Florida by its opinion and judgment filed July 12, 1971 (251 So.2d 866) and mandate dated September 17, 1971, now lodged in this court, quashed this court’s judgment with instructions to reinstate the order of the Criminal Court of Record discharging the defendant;
Now, therefore, it is ordered that the mandate of this court heretofore issued in this cause is withdrawn, the opinion and judgment of this court heretofore filed on October 28, 1970 is vacated, the opinion and judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida is herewith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 Criminal Court of Record discharging the defendant is reinstated. Costs allowed shall be taxed in the trial court (Rule 3.16(b) Florida Appellate Rules), 32 F.S.A.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
State v. Ostergard, 343 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…lack of subject matter jurisdiction of the Second Statewide Grand Jury and we hold that because of the patent facial defect in the indictments, challenge by motion to dismiss was proper. See Carroll v. State, 251 So. 2d 866 (Fla.1971), conformed to 252 So. 2d 396 (Fla.3d DCA 1971). Appellant next argues that as long as the crime charged is one which is properly under investigation, the indictment need not allege the multi-county characteristic of said offense. Thus, appellant contends that because the Secon…
-
Fla. State Univ. v. Jenkins, 323 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)…carelessness nor negligence and that since such notice was not received until after the 10 days had expired, the 10 day statutory time period should not be applicable, citing Miami Dolphins, Ltd. v. Florida Department of Commerce, Fla.App. 3rd 1971, 252 So. 2d 396. Without expressing any view as to the correctness of the above cited decision, we find that the holding there is not applicable here. In that case, the post office department failed to timely deliver the notice “due to the Christmas — New Year’s m…
-
Burina Robinson v. Morrison, Inc., 501 So. 2d 1323 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)…ualification, and relied on the claims office to keep her informed on what was happening. The Florida Department of Health court also mentioned the Third District Court of Appeals’ decision in Miami Dolphins, Ltd. v. Florida Department of Commerce, 252 So. 2d 396 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971), as an authority it could use but did not need to rely on. In that case, the appellate court gave an employer the opportunity to present a defense to its failure to reply, within ten days, to notice that an [*1326] examiner had de…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Carroll v. State, 251 So. 2d 866 (Fla. 1971)
- State v. Carroll, 240 So. 2d 205 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)