GEORGE W. DANDELAKE, P. W. FISHER, CHARLES C. COLLEY, JR., ROBERT M. MORGAN AND H. M. TURNBURKE, AS MEMBERS OF AND CONSTITUTING THE STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTANCY OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANTS,
v.
FLORIDA ACCOUNTANTS ASSOCIATION, AN ALLEGED NON-PROFIT CORPORATION ORGANIZED BY ORDER OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND HAVING ITS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS IN THE CITY OF MIAMI, DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND HOWARD CURRY, JOHN H. BARCLAY, JR., A. E. ROACHE, ALDOR DRAGON AND JOSEPH FIORELLA, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS OFFICERS OF THE FLORIDA ACCOUNTANTS ASSOCIATION, AND AS MEMBERS THEREOF, APPELLEES
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 vacated and remanded an amended final decree in a case involving the State Board of Accountancy's enforcement of the Florida Accountancy Act against the Florida Accountants Association. The remand was necessary because a 1957 amendment to the governing statute was not considered by either the trial court or the appellate court in reaching its prior decision, and the public interest required reconsideration in light of this legislative change.
The amended final decree is vacated and the cause is remanded for the trial court to reconsider the issues in light of both the 1957 amendatory Act and the former appellate decision, to determine what impact, if any, the amendment has on the previously resolved issues, and to allow for amended pleadings and further testimony as appropriate.
“In view, however, of the fact that the amendatory Act, Ch. 57-273, Acts of 1957, was considered neither by this court nor by the trial court in the interpretation of the Florida Accountancy Act, and that a public as distinguished from a private right is involved... we have concluded that the public interest requires that the amended final decree be re-opened and vacated and the cause remanded to the lower court”
Establishes the court's rationale for vacating the decree—the statutory amendment was not previously considered and public rights are at stake.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe State Board of Accountancy filed suit to enjoin actions by the Florida Accountants Association and its officers alleged to violate the Florida Acc…
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 The Court cases and more on FLexlaw
This cause is before the court on interlocutory appeal to review an amended final decree entered in the trial court after the going down of the mandate of this court in Florida Accountants Association v. Dandelake, Fla.1957, 98 So.2d 323. The purpose of the suit, filed by the appellants Dandelake et als. as members of the State Board of Accountancy, was to enjoin certain actions on the part of the appellees alleged to be in violation of the Florida Accountancy Act, Ch. 473, Fla.Stat.1955, F.S.A.
In the brief filed here in support of the interlocutory appeal it has been called to the attention of this court, for the first *47time, that § 473.29, Fla.Stat.1955, was amended by Ch. 57-273, Acts of 1957, F.S. A., on the day preceding the filing of this court’s decision in the cause, in respects now claimed to he material to this court’s decision. No explanation is vouchsafed by the appellants for their failure to apprise the court of his amendatory Act during the considerable period of time that the cause was pending in this court on petition for rehearing.
In all the circumstances here, we think the learned Chancellor was eminently correct in entering the amended final decree pursuant to the mandate of this court, as he did, and we emphasize that no error can be attributed to him in so doing. In view, however, of the fact that the amend-atory Act, Ch. 57-273, Acts of 1957, was considered neither by this court nor by the trial court in the interpretation of the Florida Accountancy Act, and that a public as distinguished from a private right is involved, see Holen v. Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Airports Commission, 1957, 250 Minn. 130, 84 N.W.2d 282, and authorities cited, we have concluded that the public interest requires that the amended final decree be re-opened and vacated and the cause remanded to the lower court for further consideration of the issues therein made in the light of the 1957 amendatory Act and the former decision of this court resolving such issues, 98 So.2d 323, and for a determination of the impact, if any, of the 1957 amendatory Act on such issues as resolved by this court in its former decision, after such amendments to the pleadings and such further testimony as to the parties may seem advisable. Cf. Mayo v. Florida Grapefruit Growers Protective Ass’n, 1936, 123 Fla. 277, 166 So. 554.
Decree appealed from reopened and vacated without prejudice, and cause remanded for further appropriate proceedings.
TERRELL, C. J., and THOMAS, HOB-SON, ROBERTS, DREW, THORNAL and O’CONNELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Fla. Accountants Ass'n v. Dandelake, 98 So. 2d 323 (Fla. 1957)
- Nathan Mayo as Commissioner of Agriculture v. Fla. Grapefruit Growers Protective Ass'n, 123 Fla. 277 (Fla. 1936)