MILTON PARKER, ET UX.,
v.
TOWN OF CALLAHAN; H. H. CARTER, ET UX., V. TOWN OF CALLAHAN; W. J. PICKETT, ET AL., V. TOWN OF CALLAHAN; CITY MORTGAGE AND BOND CO. V. CITY OF CALLAHAN
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 amended its prior judgments in these cases to clarify that the Town of Callahan could amend its bills of complaint or dismiss them without prejudice. This decision addresses the procedural rights of the town following the court's earlier reversal.
Yes, the prior judgments of reversal are amended to explicitly state that the Town of Callahan may, after remand, either amend its bills of complaint to conform to the court's holding or seek leave to dismiss them without prejudice.
“the mandates in these cases having been recalled for the purpose of correction, classification and amendment of the judgments of reversal heretofore entered herein in each of said above entitled cases, and said mandates having now been returned to this Court, it is thereupon considered, ordered and adjudged that the judgments of this Court heretofore entered in the several cases aforesaid shall be and the same are hereby amended to the effect that the same, and each of them, shall be construed to be without prejudice to the right of the Town of Callahan, as complainant below, after remand of this cause for further proceedings, either to amend the several bills of complaint herein involved, to conform to the holding of this Court in the premises, or obtain leave from the court below to dismiss said bills of complaint without prejudice to the institution of entirely new suits”
This quote details the amendment to the court's prior judgments, specifying the procedural rights of the Town of Callahan.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Town of Callahan was the complainant in several tax-related cases against various parties. The Florida Supreme Court had previously entered judgme…
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 Costs On Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
Order on Recall of Mandates.
The mandates in these cases having been recalled for the purpose of correction, classification and amendment of the judgments of reversal heretofore entered herein in each of said above entitled cases, and said mandates having now been returned to this Court, it is thereupon considered, ordered and adjudged that the judgments of this Court heretofore entered in the several cases aforesaid shall be and the same are hereby amended to the effect that the same, and each of them, shall be construed to be without prejudice to the right of the Town of Callahan, as complainant below, after remand of this cause for further proceedings, either to amend the several bills of complaint herein involved, to conform to the holding of this Court in *271the premises, or obtain leave from the court below to dismiss said bills of complaint without prejudice to the institution of entirely new suits, the costs in this Court of these appeals to be taxed against the Town of Callahan, but the Court costs awarded to the Town of Callahan in the Court below as an incident to the enforcement of its claim for taxes not to be regarded as in anywise affected or disturbed by the judgment of this Court, now entered herein.
Let mandates be reissued containing direction accordingly.
Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.