SUWANNEE & SAN PEDRO RAILROAD COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
WEST COAST RAILWAY COMPANY, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court denied a petition for rehearing, stating it was an improper attempt to reargue the entire case after a decision had already been made. The court cited its long-established rules against entertaining such petitions.
No, the petition for rehearing should not be entertained because it is an improper attempt to reargue the entire case, which has already been decided.
“A cursory examination of the so styled petition for rehearing, consisting of thirteen type-written pages shows that.it is an attempt to reargue the whole case heretofore presented to, and duly considered and decided by, this court.”
Describes the nature of the petition for rehearing.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant filed a lengthy petition for rehearing after the court had already considered and decided the case. The petition attempted to reargue al…
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 Petition For Rehearing cases and more on FLexlaw
Cockrell, J.
A paper entitled Petition for Rehearing has been marked filed here and has been presented to us for consideration.
A cursory examination of the so styled petition for rehearing, consisting of thirteen type-written pages shows that.it is an attempt to reargue the whole case heretofore presented to, and duly considered and decided by, this court. Issue is taken with the court on practically every finding of law or fact, with voluminous excerpts from the evidence and petitioner’s comments thereon. Should a re-hearing be granted such zeal on the part of counsel might be commendable, but it is out of place in an ex-parte petition.
Following the long established rule of this court, frequently expresed in its Reports, we shall decline to entertain the petition or permit it to become part of our records. Jones v. Fox, 23 Fla. 462, 2 South. Rep. 853; Sauls v. Freeman, 24 Fla. 225, 4 South. Rep. 577; Summerlin v. Thompson, 31 Fla. 369, text 391, 12 South. Rep. 667; Steele v. State, 33 Fla. 354, 14 South. Rep. 841; Florida Land Rock Phos. Co. v. Anderson, 39 South. Rep. 392, decided at this term.
Shackleford, C. J., and Whitfield, J., concur. Taylor, Hocker and Parkhill, jj., concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Tex. Co. v. Davidson, 76 Fla. 478 (Fla. 1918)…rule, and such an application will not be considered. Jones v. Fox, supra; Steele v. State, 33 Fla. 354, 14 South. Rep. 841; Florida Land Rock Phosphate Co. v. Anderson, 50 Fla. 516, 39 South. Rep. 392; Suwannee & S. P. R. Co. v. West Coast R. Co., 50 Fla. 612, 39 South. Rep. 538; Sauls v. Freeman, 24 Fla. 225, 4 South. Rep. 577. The petition for rehearing in the present case infracts the rule in all of the above particulars, and th'e profession is hereby put upon notice that in future the court will adh…
Authorities Cited
- Sauls v. Freeman, 24 Fla. 225 (Fla. 1888)
- C. H. Jones & Bro. v. Fox, 23 Fla. 462 (Fla. 1887)
- Summerlin v. Thompson & Co., 31 Fla. 369 (Fla. 1893)
- Steele v. State, 33 Fla. 354 (Fla. 1894)