CITY OF HIALEAH
v.
CITY OF MIAMI
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 an application for supersedeas, which would have stayed an injunctive order pending appeal. The court found a supersedeas was not necessary to preserve appellate jurisdiction and its issuance would unduly affect the subject matter of the appeal.
No, the application for a supersedeas should be denied. A supersedeas is not necessary for the acquisition or preservation of appellate jurisdiction, and its issuance would negatively impact the subject matter and the suit's main objective.
“A supersedeas is not necessary to the acquisition or preservation of appellate jurisdiction, and a due consideration of all rights in the premises and of the effect of the supersedeas herein applied for on the subject matter of the appeal and on the main object of the suit or action justifies a denial of a supersedeas without at this time in any respect intimating a conclusion by this Court on the merits of the .questions involved in the appeal.”
This quote explains the court's reasoning for denying the supersedeas, emphasizing that it's not essential for appellate jurisdiction and can negatively impact the case.
The appellant applied for a supersedeas to stay an injunctive order from a lower court while an appeal was pending. The court reviewed the record and …
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 Supersedeas cases and more on FLexlaw
This cause coming on to be heard upon the appellant’s application for a supersedeas of the injunctive order appealed from and the Court having heard the arguments of counsel and having seen and inspected a transcript of the record of the interlocutory order appealed from which has' been filed in this cause, and having seen and inspected the transcript of the pleadings in the cause exclusive of the evidence taken which has not been transcribed and filed, it seems to the Court that the application for a supersedeas should be denied and it is so ordered.
*656A supersedeas is not necessary to the acquisition or preservation of appellate jurisdiction, and a due consideration of all rights in the premises and of the effect of the supersedeas herein applied for on the subject matter of the appeal and on the main object of the suit or action justifies a denial of a supersedeas without at this time in any respect intimating a conclusion by this Court on the merits of the .questions involved in the appeal. Hathaway v. Munroe, 97 Fla. 28, 119 Sou. Rep. 149.
Supersedeas denied.
Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rhea v. Bacon, 87 F.2d 976 (5th Cir. 1937)…v. McDonald, 72 N.J.Eq. 805, 66 A. 175; Howard v. Henriques, 5 N.Y.Super.Ct. (3 Sandf.) 725; Marsh v. Billings, 61 Mass. (7 Cush.) 322, 54 Am. Dec. 723; Gottdiener v. Joe’s Restaurant, 111 Fla. 741, 149 So. 646; Ridley . v. Smotherman, 116 Fla. 701, 156 So. 605; Carolina Pines v. Catalina Pines, 128 Cal. App. 84, 16 P.(2d) 781; Hall v. Holstrom, 106 Cal.App. 563, 289 P. 668; McGhan v. McGhan, 115 Fla. 414, 155 So. 653; Blue Goose Auto Service v. Blue Goose Super Service Station, 110 N.J.Eq. 547, 160 A. 316…
Authorities Cited
- Fons A. Hathaway v. Munroe, 97 Fla. 28 (Fla. 1929)