DORA EISENBURG, JOINED BY HER HUSBAND, JULIUS EISENBURG,
v.
HARRY A. CORNBLUM
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 considered whether a trial court could amend a final decree after the Supreme Court had affirmed it on appeal. The Court held that once a final decree becomes the judgment of the appellate court through affirmance, the trial court lacks authority to modify it without the appellate court's permission.
A trial court lacks authority to amend a final decree that has been affirmed by an appellate court without first obtaining permission from the appellate court to modify its judgment.
“it is indisputable that on the appeal here the final decree made and entered in the lower court became the judgment of this Court and therefore the court below was without authority to enter the challenged order without first having obtained the permission of this court to so change, alter, or modify its judgment”
Establishes the core holding that once an appellate court affirms a decree, it becomes the appellate court's judgment and the trial court loses authority to modify it
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA final decree was entered by the Circuit Court of Dade County on January 10, 1945, subject to an accounting between the parties. The decree was appea…
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 Mandate Of Appellate Court cases and more on FLexlaw
The Circuit Court of Dade County, on January 10, 1945, entered a final decree in the case at bar, subject to an accounting between the parties to be had at a subsequent date. An appeal therefrom to this Court was perfected and, upon con*703sideration thereof, the decree appealed from was by an appropriate order and judgment of this Court duly affirmed. The cause was returned to the Circuit Court of Dade County, and when the parties were before the Court the following motion and order were made and entered:
“Comes now the plaintiff, by his undersigned attorneys, and shows unto the Court that the final decree referred this cause to the special master for the purpose of making an, accounting and that it is necessary in making such accounting to determine the amount of damages, if any, which the plaintiff has sustained by reason of the wrongful detention of the hotel premises by the defendants and plaintiff, therefore, respectfully prays that the final decree be amended by adding thereto the language:
“ ‘and the master is instructed, in connection with the accounting between the parties, to ascertain the damages, if any, which the plaintiff has suffered by reason of the wrongful detention of the hotel premises.’
“The above cause coming on before me to be heard upon the plaintiff’s motion to amend the final decree heretofore filed herein, and after hearing argument of counsel and the court being fully advised in the premises, it is considered ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED by the court that said motion be and the same is hereby granted and the decree is hereby amended as prayed.”
On petitions here for interlocutory certiorari under Rule 34, it is contended that the amendment of the final decree was erroneous for various reasons. It is indisputable that on the appeal here the final decree made and entered in the lower court became the judgment of this Court and therefore the court below was without authority to enter the challenged order without first having obtained the permission of this court to so change, alter, or modify its judgment. See Baskin v. Klemm, 118 Fla. 657, 160 So. 509; State ex rel. Budd v. Williams, 152 Fla. 189, 11 So. (2nd) 341; Wyman v. Barrett, 153 Fla. 860, 16 So. (2nd) 112.
The petition for certiorari is granted and the challenged order is quashed.
*704CHAPMAN, C.J., TERRELL, BUFORD and SEBRING, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Manning v. Clark, 71 So. 2d 508 (Fla. 1954)…nterclaim under the situation here before us and the lower court. The measure of damages in such a case is discussed in New Amsterdam Casualty Co. v. Utility Battery Mfg. Co., supra. Also see the three opinions in the case of Eisenburg v. Cornblum, 156 Fla. 702, 24 So. 2d 236; Id., 157 Fla. 372, 26 So. 2d 49; Id., 158 Fla. 177, 28 So. 2d 256. The fact that no bond was posted by the appellees does not affect their liability, although, if a bond were posted, under some conditions it might operate as a limita…
-
Acme Specialty Corp. v. City OF Miami, 292 So. 2d 379 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)…e sale of sparklers within the city limits of the City of Miami, became a judgment of this court upon the entry of the mandate of this court, which was not subject to interference without the specific permission of this court. Eisenburg v. Cornblum, 156 Fla. 702, 24 So. 2d 236; Fairfax Broadcasting Company v. Florida Airmotive, Inc., Fla.App.1971, 252 So. 2d 854; Lesperance v. Lesperance, Fla.App.1971, 257 So. 2d 66. Wc have concluded that the law should be on this subject matter, as pronounced in Dade Coun…
-
Fairfax Broad. Co. v. Fla. Airmotive, Inc., 252 So. 2d 854 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)…the trial court becomes the judgment of the appellate court, and therefore the trial court is without authority to change, modify or alter the judgment without first having obtained authorization of the appellate court. Eisenburg v. Cornblum, 1945, 156 Fla. 702, 24 So. 2d 236. In the case sub judice, the judgment previously appealed was a partial summary judgment rather than a final judgment as in City of Miami Beach v. Cummings and Eisenburg v. Cornblum, supra. Notwithstanding, however, the same principl…
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
- Baskin v. Klemm, 118 Fla. 657 (Fla. 1935)
- State v. HON. Ross Williams, 152 Fla. 189 (Fla. 1943)
- Hogue v. Smith, 152 Fla. 189 (Fla. 1943)
- Abel J. Wyman v. Barrett, 153 Fla. 860 (Fla. 1943)