NATHAN MAYO AS COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE, ET AL.,
v.
FLORIDA GRAPEFRUIT GROWERS PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION, ET AL.
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 a final decree and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of new legislation. The court noted that subsequent acts might have modified or repealed the statute under which the original decree was issued.
The court held that the final decree should be vacated without prejudice and the cause remanded for reconsideration and rehearing in light of the new legislation passed in 1935.
“Upon consideration of the circumstances that the subject matter of this appeal involves the application and enforcement of a statute (Chapter 11844, Acts of 1927, as amended by Chapter 14485, Acts of 1929), that is now in pari materia with additional Acts of the Legislature of Florida passed since the appeal in this case was entered (Chapters 16854, 16855, 16856, 16857, 16859, 16860, 16861, 16862 and 16863, Acts of 1935) if not repealed, modified or superseded in whole or in part by said subsequent Acts (as to which last stated proposition we express no opinion at the present time), it is thereupon considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court, which now has complete jurisdiction of the entire appealed cause, that the .final decree appealed from be and the same is hereby vacated without prejudice, and the cause remanded to the Court below for a reconsideration and rehearing of the issues involved in the light of the above cited Legislation of 1935, the interlocutory injunction heretofore granted by the Circuit Court and affirmed by this Court on a prior appeal (Mayo v. Florida Grapefruit Growers Protective Ass’n, 112 Fla. 117, 151 So. Rep. 25), to remain in full force and effect in the meantime, but subject to modification or dissolution by the Chancellor, as he may be advised according to the applicable principle of law and equity.”
Establishes the court's decision to vacate the decree and remand for reconsideration due to new legislation.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe case involved the application and enforcement of a 1927 statute, as amended in 1929. After an appeal was entered, several new acts were passed by …
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 Interlocutory Injunction cases and more on FLexlaw
Upon consideration of the circumstances that the subject matter of this appeal involves the application and enforcement of a statute (Chapter 11844, Acts of 1927, as amended by Chapter 14485, Acts of 1929), that is now in pari materia with additional Acts of the Legislature of Florida passed since the appeal in this case was entered (Chapters 16854, 16855, 16856, 16857, 16859, 16860, 16861, 16862 and 16863, Acts of 1935) if not repealed, modified or superseded in whole or in part by said subsequent Acts (as to which last stated proposition we express no opinion at the present time), it is thereupon considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court, which now has complete jurisdiction of the entire appealed cause, that the .final decree appealed from be and the same is hereby vacated without prejudice, and the cause remanded to the *278Court below for a reconsideration and rehearing of the issues involved in the light of the above cited Legislation of 1935, the interlocutory injunction heretofore granted by the Circuit Court and affirmed by this Court on a prior appeal (Mayo v. Florida Grapefruit Growers Protective Ass’n, 112 Fla. 117, 151 So. Rep. 25), to remain in full force and effect in the meantime, but subject to modification or dissolution by the Chancellor, as he may be advised according to the applicable principle of law and equity.
Decree appealed from reopened and vacated without prejudice and cause remanded for further appropriate proceedings, without costs to either appellants or appellees.
Whitfield, C. J., and Ellis, Terrell, Brown, Buford, and Davis, J. J. concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State of Fla. Dep't OF Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Tesha LaShawn Atkinson, 547 So. 2d 1262 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)…disposition of this cause. We find the appropriate remedy is to vacate the hearing officer’s order and remand to the Division of Administrative Hearings for further appropriate proceedings, Mayo v. Florida Grapefruit Growers Protective Association, 123 Fla. 277, 166 So. 554 (1936). BOOTH, JOANOS and MINER, JJ., concur.…
-
Dandelake v. Fla. Accountants Ass'n, 108 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 1959)…57 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.…
Authorities Cited
- Mayo v. Florida Grapefruit Growers Protective Assn., 112 Fla. 117 (Fla. 1933)