ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, A CORPORATION, PETITIONER,
v.
FLORIDA FINE FRUIT COMPANY, A CORPORATION, RESPONDENT
Terrell, J.
Careful examination of the record in this cause disclosed that the parties, the issues and the questions of law raised herein are identical to the parties, the issues and the question of law raised in Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company, a Corporation, v. Florida Fine Fruit Company, a Corporation, Number 538-Ap., decided this term, so the judgment of the Civil Court of Record as affirmed by the Circuit Court of Duval County is quashed on authority of that case.
Whitfield, P. J., and Buford, J., concur. Ellis, C. J., and Strum and Brown, J. J., concur in the opinion.
Per Curiam.
Petition for rehearing on the part of respondent was granted in this cause for the purpose of further considering whether or not the petition for certiorari should be denied on the ground that a good ease was made on the general negligence and delay counts.
The record has been carefully re-examined. The verdict was general and the errors on which the judgment below was quashed so permeated and effected the entire proceeding we think that our former judgment herein must be and is hereby approved and the judgment of the Civil Court of Record as affirmed by the Circuit Court of Duval County is hereby quashed.
All concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (22 total)
-
Lynch v. State, 293 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 1974)…nsurance Co. of America, etc., 284 So. 2d 205 (Fla.1973). I agree with Judge Owen’s conclusions as to the two questions, but supplement them with the following citations and reasons : As to question one, see Smith v. State (Fla.1927), 93 Fla. 238, 112 So. 70, and 41 Am.Jur.2d, Indictments and Informations § 161. It is fundamentally unfair for the State in its bill of particulars to specify and give notice to a defendant that it charged he committed an offense on a particular date and have the latter mar…1 / 2
-
State v. Beamon, 298 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 1974)…of date in a bill of particulars is to narrow the Indictment or Information as to the time within which the act or acts allegedly constituting the offense may be proved. Martin v. Karel, 106 Fla. 363, 143 So. 317 (1932); Smith v. State, 93 Fla. 238, 112 So. 70 (1927); Middleton v. State, 74 Fla. 234, 76 So. 785 (1917); Ex parte Clarkson, 72 Fla. 220, 72 So. 675 (1916). Also, the fact that the date charged in the first Information in this case was Nov. 26, 1972, does not control over a specification in the…
-
Deiterle v. State, 101 Fla. 79 (Fla. 1931)…ited by Judge Hutchison, applies with full force; that is, the jury should not convict the defendant unless, on the evidence, considering it all together, the corpus delicti is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. See also Smith vs. State, 93 Fla. 238, 112 So. 70, which holds that there must be proof of the corpus delicti independent of the confession or admission.…
Previewing 3 of 22 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence