FONTAINEBLEAU HOTEL CORP., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, PETITIONER,
v.
JACK YOUNG AND ENTERTAINMENT GUILD, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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 discharged a writ of certiorari, finding no direct conflict with a cited precedent and that the appeal would serve no useful purpose. The case involved a dispute over whether an arbitration agreement was followed before respondents filed suit, leading to a summary judgment for respondents that was affirmed by a lower appellate court.
No direct conflict exists between the instant case and the cited precedent because the controlling facts are not substantially the same and the decisional results are not dissimilar. Therefore, even if jurisdiction were established, overturning the lower court's judgment would serve no useful purpose.
“However, after argument and upon further consideration of the matter, we have determined that there is not direct conflict between the instant case and Bohlmann v. Allstate Insurance Company, 171 So. 2d 23 (Fla.App. 2d), cited by Petitioner in support of its petition for the reason the controlling facts are not substantially the same in the two cases and the decisional result in both cases is not dissimilar.”
This quote explains the primary reason the court found no direct conflict with the cited precedent.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRespondents filed suit instead of following an arbitration agreement with Petitioner. The trial court entered a summary judgment for Respondents, whic…
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 Arbitration Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw
It appears Petitioner is aggrieved because an arbitration agreement between the parties was not followed by Respondents, who brought suit instead. The trial court entered therein a summary judgment for Respondents which was affirmed by the District Court of Appeal, Third District.
The petition for writ of certiorari reflected probable jurisdiction in this Court. We issued the writ and have heard able argument of counsel for the parties on the questions of jurisdiction and merits. However, after argument and upon further consideration of the matter, we have determined that there is not direct conflict between the instant case and Bohlmann v. Allstate Insurance Company, 171 So.2d 23 (Fla.App. 2d), cited by Petitioner in support of its petition for the reason the controlling facts are not substantially the same in the two cases and the decisional result in both cases is not dissimilar. It appears from the facts that there was no genuine issue between the parties as to the amount ultimately awarded to Respondents in the second summary judgment. For this reason, even if there were conflict invoking this Court’s jurisdiction, it would serve no useful purpose in respect to the merits of this case, as was similarly decided in the Bohlmann case, to set *654aside the trial court’s judgment and require arbitration.
Therefore, the writ must be and is hereby-discharged and the petition for writ of cer-tiorari is dismissed.
It is so ordered.
CALDWELL, ERVIN and HOBSON (Ret.), JJ., concur.
O’CONNELL, J., concurs specially with Opinion.
THORNAL, C. J., THOMAS, J., and McCORD, Circuit Judge, concur specially and agree with O’CONNELL, J.
(concurring specially) .
I agree that the writ should be discharged because the jurisdictional conflict between decisions does not exist.
THORNAL, C. J., THOMAS, J., and McCORD, Circuit Judge, concur.
O’CONNELL, Justice
(concurring specially) .
I agree that the writ should be discharged because the jurisdictional conflict between decisions does not exist.
THORNAL, C. J., THOMAS, J., and McCORD, Circuit Judge, concur.