JUNE REAVES, PLAINTIFF,
v.
L. W. ROZZO, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY COMPANY, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, DEFENDANTS
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 Fourth District Court of Appeal denied a trial court's certified question regarding whether a wife may pursue a loss-of-consortium action after her husband has fully litigated and settled his own personal injury claim. The court held that controlling Florida Supreme Court precedent already addressed this question, making certification improper.
The certified question was denied because it was not without controlling precedent in Florida, as required by Rule 4.6. The Florida Supreme Court had already addressed this issue in Scudder v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad, Banores v. Austin, and Gates v. Foley, making the question improper for certification to the appellate court.
[1] A certified question must be one without controlling precedent in the state to be properly considered by an appellate court.
[2] A District Court of Appeal does not have the authority to overrule a decision of the Supreme Court of Florida.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“a District Court of Appeal does not have the authority to overrule a decision of the Supreme Court of Florida”
Establishes the jurisdictional limitation preventing the appellate court from departing from controlling Supreme Court precedent
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA wife (June Reaves) sought to maintain an action for loss of her husband's consortium. The husband had already fully litigated his personal injury ac…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Appellate Court Authority cases and more on FLexlaw
MAGER, Judge.
Pursuant to Rule 4.6, F.A.R., 32 F.S.A.,1 the trial court certified to this court the following question:
“Whether a wife is allowed to maintain an action for loss of her husband’s consortium where the husband has already fully litigated his action for the injuries he sustained, received satisfaction in full for said injuries, and his wife did not join him in litigation.”
It is clear from a reading of Rule 4.6 that in order for certification to be effected the question or proposition of law certified to the appellate court must be one “without controlling precedent in this state”. (See discussion of certified questions by the late Fuller Warren in 9 Miami Law Quarterly 375.) The question posed by the trial court and certified to this court for disposition was determined by the Supreme Court of Florida in Scudder v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad, Fla.1971, 247 So. 2d 46; Banores v. Austin, Fla.1971, 248 So. 2d 648, and Gates v. Foley, Fla. 1971, 247 So. 2d 40. Although numerous authorities have been cited to this court (by the defendants below) suggesting a position contrary to that espoused by our Supreme Court in the above cited cases, “a District Court of Appeal does not have the authority to overrule a decision of the Supreme Court of Florida”, Hoffman v. Jones, Fla. 1973, 280 So. 2d 431.2 Any departure from the aforementioned decisions “should be at the hands of the Supreme Court rather than [at the hands of] the District Court of Appeal”, Hoffman v. Jones, supra.3
Inasmuch as the question presented is not without controlling precedent in the State such question does not fall within Rule 4.6. Jaworski v. City of Opa-Locka, Fla.App. 1963, 149 So. 2d 566. The trial court has the power to adjudicate the question which may be reviewed on appeal if desired. See Miller v. Esca Rosa Development Corp., First District Court of Appeal, 284 So. 2d 227, opinion filed October 23, 1973.
Certified question denied.
CROSS and DOWNEY, JJ„ concur. .“Rule 4.6. Certified Questions Prom State Courts
“a. When Certified. When it shall appear to a judge of the lower court that there is involved in any cause pending before him questions or propositions of law that are determinative of the cause and are without controlling precedent in this state and that instruction from the Court will facilitate the proper disposition of the cause, said judge, on his own motion or on motion of either party, may certify said question or proposition of law to the Court for instruction.”
. But see Bussey v. Shingleton, Fla.App. 1968, 211 So. 2d 593; Shingleton v. Bussey, Fla.1969, 223 So. 2d 713; Lunney v. Post, Fla.App.1971, 248 So. 2d 504; Post v. Lunney, Fla.1972, 261 So. 2d 146.
. See footnote 2, infra.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McPHEE v. Dade Cnty., 362 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…the question of whether the rationale of Keggin, supra, would be accepted today. However, as the Supreme Court has not yet overruled Keggin, it is the duty of the court to follow the prior decisions of the Supreme Court. Reaves v. L. W. Rozzo, Inc., 286 So. 2d 221 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973). In Jackson v. Palm Beach County, 360 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978), opinion filed April 10, 1978, the Fourth District Court of Appeal, when confronted with a similar fact situation and a similar argument of liability based upon…
-
Alls v. 7-Eleven Food Stores, Inc., 353 So. 2d 202 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…the certified question and must respectfully decline to answer it. See: Schwob Co. of Florida v. Florida Industrial Commission, 152 Fla. 203, 11 So. 2d 782, 783 (1942); State v. Vernon, 289 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974); Reaves v. L. W. Rozzo, Inc., 286 So. 2d 221 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973). Certified question denied.…
-
Cziraky v. The Sch. Bd. OF Palm Beach Cnty., Inc., 294 So. 2d 707 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)…examination of the applicable authorities, we are of the opinion that the question certified to this court does not fall within Rule 4.6 and accordingly we must respectfully decline to answer the question. Reaves v. L. W. Rozzo, Inc., Fla.App.1973, 286 So. 2d 221. See also Miller v. Esca Rosa Development Corporation, Fla.App.1973, 284 So. 2d 227; cf. Arnold v. Shumpert, Fla.1968, 217 So. [*708] 2d 116; Adams v. Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Fla.App.1974, 288 So. 2d 263. Certified question denied. W…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (12 total)
- Hoffman v. Jones, 280 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 1973)
- Gates v. Foley, 247 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 1971)
- Shingleton v. Bussey, 223 So. 2d 713 (Fla. 1969)
- Gulf Stream Motors, Inc. v. Christina Cook & the Fla. Indus. Comm'n, 223 So. 2d 713 (Fla. 1969)
- Post v. Lunney, 261 So. 2d 146 (Fla. 1972)
- Bussey v. Shingleton, 211 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968)
- Granville v. State, 248 So. 2d 504 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)
- Scudder v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad, 247 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 1971)
- The Babsdon Co. v. Thrifty Parking Co., 149 So. 2d 566 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)
- Sigmund T. Jaworski v. The City OF Opa-Locka, 149 So. 2d 566 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)