BLANCHE H. MILLER
v.
RAYMOND F. MILLER
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 clarified its prior decree, specifying that it reversed the lower court's denial of a petition for a bill of review and remanded the case for further proceedings on that petition.
The prior decree is intended to apply only to the specific petition filed on November 20, 1936. The decree reverses the order that denied permission to file this petition and remands the cause for further proceedings.
“as is manifest from the opinion of this Court; the decree rendered here is intended to apply only to the petition in the cause filed November 20, 1936, and such decree of this Court should be regarded as decreeing that the order appealed from which denied the petition for permission to file a "petition in the nature of a bill of review" filed November 20, 1936, is reversed and the cause remanded for appropriate proceedings on such petition.”
This quote explains the court's clarification of its prior decree, specifying its application and effect.
The parties previously appealed an order from a lower court. The Florida Supreme Court had previously issued a decree on October 31, 1938, regarding t…
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 Remand cases and more on FLexlaw
Upon petition requesting that the scope of the decree of this Court rendered herein October 31, 1938, be more definitely stated, it is upon consideration ordered that, as is manifest from the opinion of this Court; the decree rendered here is intended to apply only to the petition in the cause filed November 20, 1936, and such decree of this Court should be regarded as decreeing that the order appealed from which denied the petition for permission to file a “petition in the nature of a bill of review” filed November 20, 1936, is reversed and the cause remanded for appropriate proceedings on such petition.
It is so ordered.
Terrell, C. J., and Whitfield, Brown, Buford and Ci-iapman, J. J., concur.
Justice Ti-iomas not participating as authorized by Section 4687, Compiled General Laws of 1927, and Rule 21-A of the Rules of this Court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Town OF Medley v. Seminole Rock Prods., Inc., 138 So. 2d 534 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)…her cause be virtually and commensurately excluded from the benefits of such municipal organization, * * * Section 171.02, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. See: Durham v. Pentucket Graves, 138 Fla. 386, 189 So. 428; Town of Polk City v. Block Twenty, 138 Fla. 609, 189 So. 927; Town of Eagle Lake v. Adams, 146 Fla. 165, 200 So. 367. The chancellor, having heard and received the evidence of the respective parties, made a finding in his final decree that the appellee’s lands were virtually and commensurately excluded from t…
-
McCOMBS v. West, 155 F.2d 601 (5th Cir. 1946)…emaining district, and all rights and franchises belonging to such city or town at the time of exclusion, shall remain and be the property of such city or town.” The Pentucket Groves case was followed in Town of Polk City v. Block 20, 138 Fla. 609, 189 So. 927. and Town of Eagle Lake v. Adams, 146 Fla. 165, 200 So. 367, in the application of the statute and exclusion decrees as between the property owners and their town.…