LUCILE HARVEY, AN UNMARRIED WOMAN,
v.
THE CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG

Fla. | 1940-06-28
Terrell, C. J., and Buford and Thomas, J. J., concur., AVi-iitfield, P. J., concurs in opinion' and judgment., Justices Brown and Chapman not participating as authorized by Section 4687, Compiled General Laws of 1927, and Rule 21-A of the Rules of this Court.
143 Fla. 559 Florida Supreme Court (1940) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 197 So. 116
Cited by 6 cases
Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam.

Per Curiam.

This is the second appearance of this case here. See Harvey v. City of St. Petersburg, 138 Fla. 597, 189 So. 861.

The appeal in that case was from interlocutory order. This appeal is from final decree.

The law of the case is found stated in the opinion' and judgment, supra, and no useful purpose may be served by repeating what was said there.

The decree is affirmed.

So ordered.

Affirmed.

Terrell, C. J., and Buford and Thomas, J. J., concur.

AVi-iitfield, P. J., concurs in opinion' and judgment.

Justices Brown and Chapman not participating as authorized by Section 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

  • Olin's, Inc. v. AVIS Rental CAR Sys. OF Fla., Inc., 172 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
    …aised, argued and determined adverse to the appellant. Under the principle of the “law of the case” the decision on the prior appeal renders these questions no longer debatable. See 2 Fla.Jur., Appeals, § 398; Harvey v. St. Petersburg, 143 Fla. 559, 197 So. 116; Red Top Sedan Service, Inc. v. S. & J. Transportation, Inc., Fla.App.1963, 150 So. 2d 450. As to the first point, appellant argues that since it had posted huge supersedeas bonds, remained on the airport property, rendered services to the public u…
  • Schempp v. Schempp, 339 So. 2d 672 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)
    …the “law of the case” doctrine applies to a question raised in an appeal from a final decree which has been previously decided adversely to an appellant in the appeal of an interlocutory order. (Harvey v. City of St. Petersburg, 1940, 143 Fla. 559, 197 So. 116, cert. den. 311 U.S. 697, 61 S.Ct. 136, 85 L.Ed. 452) An appellate court does, however, have the power to reconsider and correct erroneous rulings notwithstanding that such rulings have become the law of the case. (Strazzulla v. Hendrick, Sup.Ct. Fl…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw