W. C. ROGERS, ET AL., AS MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION OF GILCHRIST COUNTY, FLORIDA, ET AL.,
v.
STATE EX REL. BOARD OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION OF ALACHUA COUNTY FLORIDA, ET AL.
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 Florida Supreme Court affirmed a lower court judgment awarding a peremptory writ of mandamus in a dispute between boards of public instruction in two counties regarding tax collection obligations. This was the second appeal of the case, and the court found that the law of the case established in the first appeal governed the issues presented.
The court affirmed the lower court's orders and judgments, finding that the appellants' contentions regarding the amendments were not tenable and that the law of the case established in the first appeal controlled.
“Questions necessarily involved in the decision on a former appeal will be regarded as the law of the case on a subsequent appeal although the questions are not expressly treated in the opinion of the Court”
Establishes the law of the case doctrine that governs what issues are settled across multiple appeals
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Board of Public Instruction of Gilchrist County challenged a lower court judgment that had awarded a peremptory writ of mandamus against it in fav…
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 Peremptory Writ Of Mandamus cases and more on FLexlaw
This is the second appearance of this case here. See Board of Public Instruction of Gilchrist County, et al. v. Board of Public Instruction of Alachua County, et al., 155 Fla. 79, 19 So. (2nd) 576.
Our conclusion is that practically all matters presented on this appeal were settled and determined by our opinion and judgment on the former appeal. In that opinion and judgment we affirmed the opinion and judgment of the lower court awarding peremptory writ of mandamus. Nothing is presented here which we think warrants us in departing from .our opinion and judgment in that case which became the law of the case insofar as it determined all the issues which were presented, or which might have been presented at that time.
See Sanders v. State, 82 Fla. 498, 90 So. 455. See also 5 C.J.S. Sec. 1832, wherein it said:
“Questions necessarily involved in the decision on a former appeal will be regarded as the law of the case on a subsequent appeal although the questions are not expressly treated in the opinion of the Court, as the presumption is that all the facts in the case bearing on the points decided have, received due consideration whether all or none of them are mentioned in the opinion. The records on a former appeal may be looked into for the purpose of ascertaining what facts and questions were then before the court. .. ” — Also see Paul v. Commercial Bank of Ocala 69 Fla. 62, 68 So. 68; F.E.C. Ry. Co. v. Geoger, 66 Fla. 582, 64 So. 238.
The only questions which are presented by this appeal and which were not before the court in the former appeal result from the order of the court below entered March 20, 1945, in which order the court provided for a spread of the tax to pay the adjudged indebtedness over a period of fifteen (15) years and at the same time amended the writs so as to *163make them apply to the fiscal year 1945-1946 to avoid chaos in tax collections, the original writ having applied to the year 1944-1945, and also provided that the writ should run against recently elected county officials instead of their predecessors in office.
Appellants contentions in regard to these amendments are not tenable.
On authority of our. opinion and judgment on the former appeal, and after full consideration'of the contentions made upon this appeal the orders and judgments appealed from are now affirmed.
So ordered.
CHAPMAN, C. J„ TERRELL and BROWN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Goodman v. Olsen, 365 So. 2d 393 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…depended upon a contingency, the transaction could not be usurious under New York law. The complete record was before the supreme court. We must assume that all pertinent facts of record were taken into consideration. Rogers v. State, 156 Fla. 161, 23 So. 2d 154 (Fla.1945). Additionally, Olsen reargued the question of usury per se based on the rebate in both his petition for rehearing to the supreme court and his petition for a constitutional writ in aid of jurisdiction. See footnote 4, supra. The facts re…
-
Dade Cnty. Classroom Teachers' Ass'n, Inc. v. Rubin, 238 So. 2d 284 (Fla. 1970)…tion was properly entered. The earlier decision has become “the law of the case” and questions so settled on the earlier appeal are no longer open to question on a subsequent appeal. Rogers v. State ex rel. Board of Public Instruction, 156 Fla. 161, 23 So. 2d 154 (1945); Ferguson v. Brogan, 111 Fla. 224, 149 So. 772 (1933); Sanders v. State ex rel. D’Alemberti, 82 Fla. 498, 90 So. 455 (1921). The order of the lower court is Affirmed. ROBERTS, DREW and BOYD, JJ„ concur. ERVIN, C. J., concurs specially wit…
-
NEW England Ins. Co. v. Int'l Bank OF Miami, N.A., 537 So. 2d 1025 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…se between the same parties on the same issues and facts, and determines all issues necessarily involved in the appeal, whether mentioned in the court’s opinion or not. Rogers v. State ex rel. Bd. of Pub. Instruction of Alachua County, 156 Fla. 161, 23 So. 2d 154 (1945); see also South Fla. Hosp. Corp. v. McCrea, 118 So. 2d 25 (Fla.1960); Red Carpet Corp. v. Roberts, 443 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), review denied, 488 So. 2d 68 (Fla.1986); State Comm’n on Ethics v. Sullivan, 430 So. 2d 928 (Fla. 1st DCA),…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co. v. Geiger, 66 Fla. 582 (Fla. 1914)
- Paul v. Commercial Bank of Ocala, 69 Fla. 62 (Fla. 1915)
- Sanders v. State ex rel. J. Herron D'Alemberte, 82 Fla. 498 (Fla. 1921)
- Sellers v. State (Miss. 1921)
- Bd. of Pub. Instruction of Gilchrist Cnty. v. Bd. of Pub. Instruction of Alachua Cnty., 155 Fla. 79 (Fla. 1944)
- Hansford v. Peacock, 155 Fla. 78 (Fla. 1944)