CHASE MANHATTAN BANK, A NEW YORK NATIONAL BANKING ASSOCIATION, APPELLANT,
v.
SAILBOAT APARTMENT CORP., A FLORIDA CORPORATION ET AL., APPELLEES
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 U.S. Supreme Court vacated this Court's prior affirmance and remanded for reconsideration in light of National Bank of North America v. Associates of Obstetrics and Female Surgery, Inc., which addressed venue provisions in the National Bank Act. The case concerns whether Chase Manhattan Bank waived its venue protection under 12 U.S.C. § 94.
The Court remanded the case to the Circuit Court to conduct a hearing to determine whether the appellant-defendant has waived the protection of the venue provision of the National Bank Act.
[1] A state appellate court must vacate its prior judgment and adopt the judgment of the United States Supreme Court when the Supreme Court remands the case for reconsiderati…
[2] A state appellate court, upon remand from the United States Supreme Court, must direct the trial court to hold a hearing to determine if a defendant waived the protection…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“the mandate of the Supreme Court of the United States has been filed with this Court, which said mandate was predicated upon the order and judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States, entered November 1, 1976”
Establishes that the U.S. Supreme Court issued a vacating mandate remanding the case for further consideration
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceChase Manhattan Bank, a New York national banking association, was the defendant in the trial court in an action brought by Sailboat Apartment Corp. a…
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.
PER CURIAM.
Whereas, the judgment and decision of this Court in this cause was filed July 29, 1975, and reported in 318 So. 2d 575, wherein the judgment of the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Dade County, Florida was affirmed; and Whereas, said decision and judgment was declined review by the Supreme Court of Florida by certiorari proceedings, 334 So. 2d 604; and Whereas, in the November Term, 1976, the said cause came on to be heard before the Supreme Court of the United States on petition for writ of certiorari to this Court and response thereto; and Whereas, the mandate of the Supreme Court of the United States has been filed with this Court, which said mandate was predicated upon the order and judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States, entered November 1, 1976, - U.S. -, 97 S.Ct. 300, 50 L.Ed.2d 278 (1976), which said judgment vacated the judgment of this Court first above mentioned and remanded the case to this Court for consideration in light of National Bank of North America v. Associates of Obstetrics and Female Surgery, Inc., 425 U.S. 460, 96 S.Ct. 1632, 48 L.Ed.2d 92; accordingly,
The judgment and opinion of this Court filed July 29, 1975, is set aside and held for naught, and the opinion and judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States filed November 1, 1976, is adopted as this Court’s opinion and judgment and the same shall accompany the mandate of this Court to the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Dade County, Florida; and, accordingly,
The Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Dade County, Florida is directed to hold a hearing for the purpose of determining whether the appellant, defendant in the trial court, has waived the protection of the venue provision of the National Bank Act, 12 U.S.C. § 94, and for such other proceedings as may be deemed appropriate in the premises.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Killearn Props., Inc. v. City OF Tallahassee, 366 So. 2d 172 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)…t. . Affirmed in part and quashed in part upon certiorari being granted by the Supreme Court. See City of North Miami Beach v. So. Gulf Utilities, Inc., 339 So. 2d 173 (Fla.1976). See also Southern Gulf Utilities, Inc. v. City of North Miami Beach, 340 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1977). . Ibid. . In that regard the street lights are not different from the utility poles, wires, transformers, etc., which the City impliedly agreed to furnish, without extra charge, in contemplation of distributing and selling ene…
Authorities Cited
- Nat'l Bank of N. Am. v. Assocs. of Obstetrics & Female Surgery, Inc., 425 U.S. 460 (U.S. 1976)
- Chase Manhattan Bank v. Sailboat Apt. Corp., 318 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
- Henderson v. State, 318 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)