BRIAN LOWRY, PETITIONER,
v.
CENTRAL LEASING MANAGEMENT, INC., ET AL., RESPONDENTS
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 quashed the First District Court of Appeal's decision in Lowry v. Central Leasing Management, Inc., and remanded for reconsideration in light of the Court's decision in Murray v. Mariner Health, which had invalidated the precedent the First District relied upon.
A lower court decision that relied on precedent subsequently quashed by the Florida Supreme Court must be reconsidered in light of the Supreme Court's corrected legal standard.
The First District Court of Appeal decided Lowry v. Central Leasing Management, Inc., citing its decision in Murray v. Manners Health/ACE USA as autho…
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 Remand For Reconsideration cases and more on FLexlaw
We have for review Lowry v. Central Leasing Management, Inc., 33 Fla. L. Weekly D1241, — So.3d-, 2008 WL 1930055 (Fla. 1st DCA May 5, 2008), in which the First District Court of Appeal cited as authority its decision in Murray v. Manners Health/ACE USA, 946 So.2d 38 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006), quashed, 994 So.2d 1051 (Fla.2008). See also Lowry v. Central Leasing Management, Inc., 988 So.2d 1113 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (additionally certifying a question of great public importance). When the First District issued its decision in Lowry, its Murray decision was pending review in this Court. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § (3)(b)(3)-(4), Fla. Const.; Jollie v. State, 405 So.2d 418 (Fla.1981).
We stayed proceedings in this case pending our disposition of Murray v. Mariner Health, 994 So.2d 1051 (Fla.2008), in which we quashed the First District’s underlying Murray decision. When our de-*1190cisión in Murray became final, we issued an order directing respondents in the present case to show cause why we should not exercise jurisdiction, summarily quash the decision being reviewed, and remand for reconsideration in light of our decision in Murray. Respondents in their response concede that we should so proceed.
Accordingly, we grant the petition for review in this case, quash the decision below, and remand for reconsideration upon application of our decision in Murray.
It is so ordered.
QUINCE, C.J., and WELLS, PARIENTE, LEWIS, CANADY, POLSTON, and LABARGA, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Celeste v. Kerns, 32 So. 3d 611 (Fla. 2009)
Authorities Cited
- Jollie v. State, 405 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 1981)
- Murray v. Mariner Health and ACE USA, 994 So. 2d 1051 (Fla. 2008)
- Schwanda v. Woodbine Indus., Inc., 946 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)
- Lowry v. Cent. Leasing Mgmt., Inc., 988 So. 2d 1113 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)