JOAN ELAINE SCHEMPP AND MARGARET M. SCHEMPP, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEE OF THE PROPERTY OF WILBUR ALBERT SCHEMPP, APPELLANTS,
v.
WILBUR ALBERT SCHEMPP, APPELLEE
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.
In this Florida appellate case, the court addresses whether the 'law of the case' doctrine prevents reconsideration of issues previously decided against appellants in an interlocutory appeal when those issues are raised again in a final appeal. The court dismisses the final appeal, holding that the doctrine applies and that appellants failed to demonstrate manifest injustice warranting reconsideration.
The court held that the 'law of the case' doctrine applies to questions previously decided adversely to an appellant on interlocutory appeal and governs subsequent proceedings in the same court. Although appellate courts have the power to reconsider erroneous rulings notwithstanding the law of the case doctrine, such reconsideration is warranted only to prevent manifest injustice, which appellants failed to demonstrate here.
[1] The "law of the case" doctrine dictates that questions decided on appeal must govern the same case in subsequent stages.
[2] The "law of the case" doctrine applies to issues previously decided adversely to an appellant in an interlocutory order appeal, even when raised in a final decree appeal.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“Under the 'law of the case' doctrine, questions decided on appeal in courts of ultimate resort must govern the case in the same court through subsequent stages of proceedings”
Establishes the foundational principle that the law of the case doctrine requires appellate decisions to govern subsequent proceedings
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial court entered an order of partial summary judgment in favor of appellee (Wilbur Albert Schempp). Appellants filed an interlocutory appeal, w…
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 Manifest Injustice cases and more on FLexlaw
BOYER, Chief Judge.
Appellee’s motion to quash raises the issue whether and to what extent the “law of the case” concept applies when an order of the trial court which has been upheld by way of interlocutory appeal is again challenged by way of final appeal. After the trial court entered its order of partial summary judgment in favor of appellee (plaintiff in the trial court), appellants filed their notice of interlocutory appeal. This Court fully considered the arguments of appellants on the merits and dismissed the interlocutory appeal. Schempp v. Schempp, Fla.App. 1st 1976, 327 So. 2d 120. Petition for rehearing was denied. Upon receiving this Court’s mandate, the trial court without taking additional evidence or testimony, entered final judgment in favor of appellee from which appellants have brought a full appeal.
Under the “law of the case” doctrine, questions decided on appeal in courts of ultimate resort must govern the case in the same court through subsequent stages of proceedings, McGregor v. Provident Trust Co. of Philadelphia, 1935, 119 Fla. 718, 162 So. 323. It has been long established that 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. Fla.1965, 177 So. 2d 1)
Appellee argues that appellants are attempting to obtain reversal of the final judgment by challenging an interlocutory order which has been appealed and upheld previously by this Court. Appellants reply that different issues not raised in the interlocutory appeal are presented in the full appeal, and that, to the extent that the full appeal does reargue the issues raised in the prior interlocutory appeal, this Court should reconsider those issues to prevent manifest injustice. (See Struzzulla v. Hendrick, supra)
Upon full consideration of the record and briefs filed by appellants in both the present and prior appeals, we have concluded that appellee’s motion to quash should be granted. Of the several points raised by appellants in their brief filed in the full appeal, all except one point, challenge the order of partial summary judgment which has been previously upheld by this Court in the prior interlocutory appeal. Our examination of the record has not caused us to conclude that reliance on our decision in the interlocutory appeal as the law of the case will result in manifest injustice. The only new point raised by appellants in the full appeal concerns the failure of the trial court in his order of final summary judgment to allow appellants to amend their pleadings. That point, however, was never presented to the trial court by appellants, and our review of the record reveals that the trial court did not err in entering final judgment without of its own volition permitting appellants to amend their pleadings.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
McCORD and SMITH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Goodman v. Olsen, 365 So. 2d 393 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…er or not we agree with the conclusions reached, this court is without authority to alter either conclusions of fact or interpretations of law reached by the supreme court. But cf. Strazzulla v. Hendrick, 177 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1965); Schempp v. Schempp, 339 So. 2d 672 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). (An appellate court which rendered the decision which has become the law of the case has the power to reconsider and correct its own decision.) When an appellate court reverses prior decisions, the judgment of reversal is not n…
-
Cordelia Wallace v. P. L. Dodge Mem'l Hosp., 399 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…ly where a manifest injustice would result from strict adherence to the rule. Strazzula v. Hendrick, supra. This is not a case in which that power should be exercised.1 See also Goodman v. Olsen, 365 So. 2d 393 (Fla.3d DCA 1979); Schempp v. Schempp, 339 So. 2d 672 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). Instead, this is simply a case where a former decision of this court is attacked as being erroneous — a case for which the doctrine of the law of the case was intended. Indeed, were we to carve an exception to the law of the cas…
-
Realty Marts Int'l, Inc. v. Barlow, 348 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)…applied the doctrine of the law of the case as justification for dismissing a plenary appeal even though different issues were before the court in the earlier interlocutory appeal; the facts, however, were substantially the same. Schempp v. Schempp, 339 So. 2d 672 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). My review of the record convinces me that there were no factual distinctions of any substance which occurred upon remand. The facts recited in this court’s prior majority opinion were essentially the same facts presented later…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- McGregor v. Provident Tr. Co. of Philadelphia, 119 Fla. 718 (Fla. 1935)
- Strazzulla v. Hendrick, 177 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1965)
- Lucile Harvey v. The City of St. Petersburg, 143 Fla. 559 (Fla. 1940)
- Hare v. Henderson, 311 U.S. 697 (U.S. 1940)
- United States for the use and benefit of Luchini v. Ferro Concrete Constr. Co., 311 U.S. 697 (U.S. 1940)
- Cuneo v. Peninsular Life Ins. Co., 143 Fla. 492 (Fla. 1940)
- Schempp v. Schempp, 327 So. 2d 120 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)