CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, PETITIONER,
v.
JON ALLEN DANCY, RESPONDENT
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 granted Citizens Property Insurance's petition for review and quashed the First District Court of Appeal's decision in Dancy because that decision relied on Cox, which the Supreme Court had previously quashed. The case was remanded for reconsideration in light of the Supreme Court's Cox decision.
The Supreme Court granted the petition for review, quashed the First District's Dancy decision, and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Cox, which had quashed the lower court's Cox holding.
“We ultimately quashed the First District's underlying Cox decision.”
Establishes that the Supreme Court quashed Cox, which was the basis for the Dancy decision
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCitizens Property Insurance Corporation appealed a First District decision in which the appellate court cited its own prior decision in Florida Farm B…
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 Stare Decisis cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We have for review Citizens Property Insurance Corp. v. Dancy, 963 So. 2d 271 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007), in which the First District Court of Appeal cited as authority its decision in Florida Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Co. v. Cox, 943 So. 2d 823 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006), quashed, 967 So. 2d 815 (Fla.2007). At the time the First District issued its decision in Dancy, Cox was pending review in this Court. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.; Jollie v. State, 405 So. 2d 418 (Fla.1981).
We ultimately quashed the First District’s underlying Cox decision. See Fla. Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co. v. Cox, 967 So. 2d 815 (Fla.2007). We accordingly issued an order directing respondent to show cause why this Court should not accept jurisdiction in the present case, quash the Dancy decision under review, and remand for reconsideration in light of our decision in Cox. Upon consideration of respondent’s response and petitioner’s reply thereto, we have determined to so proceed.
We thus grant the petition for review in the present case. The decision under review is quashed, and this matter is remanded to the First District Court of Appeal for reconsideration upon application of this Court’s decision in Cox. Respondent’s pending motion for appellate attorney fees is hereby denied.
It is so ordered.
LEWIS, C.J., and WELLS, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, QUINCE, CANTERO, and BELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (22 total)
-
Se. Floating Docks, Inc. v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 82 So. 3d 73 (Fla. 2012)…dress for their invasion. ‘Practice and procedure’ may be described as the machinery of the judicial process as opposed to the product thereof.” It is the method of conducting litigation involving rights and corresponding defenses. Massey v. David, 979 So. 2d 931, 936-37 (Fla.2008) (emphasis in original) (quoting Haven Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Kirian, 579 So. 2d 730, 732 (Fla.1991)). Article II, section 3 proscribes one branch of government from exercising “any powers appertaining to either of the other bra…
-
Est. OF Michelle Evette McCALL v. United States, 134 So. 3d 894 (Fla. 2014)…ither of the other branches unless expressly provided herein.” As this Court has explained, “[gjenerally, the Legislature is empowered to enact substantive law while [the judicial' branch] has the authority to enact procedural law.” Massey v. David, 979 So. 2d 931, 936 (Fla.2008). Therefore, “[i]f a statute is clearly substantive and operates in an area of legitimate legislative concern, this Court will not hold that it constitutes an unconstitutional encroachment on the judicial branch.” Id. at 937. In Rowl…
-
Dane P. Abdool v. Bondi, 141 So. 3d 529 (Fla. 2014)…ons filed in this State. See Se. Floating Docks, Inc. v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 82 So. 3d 73, 78 (Fla.2012). Generally, the Legislature is empowered to enact substantive law while this Court has the authority to enact procedural law. Massey v. David, 979 So. 2d 931, 936 (Fla.2008); see also Allen, 756 So. 2d at 59. Accordingly, a statute which creates or modifies a procedural rule of this Court violates article II, section 3, of the Florida Constitution, which prohibits one branch of government from exercising…
Previewing 3 of 22 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Jollie v. State, 405 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 1981)
- Fla. Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co. v. COX, 967 So. 2d 815 (Fla. 2007)
- Fla. Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co. v. COX, 943 So. 2d 823 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)
- Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Dancy, 963 So. 2d 271 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)