THE WACKENHUT CORPORATION AND AETNA CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY, PETITIONERS,
v.
THE JUDGES OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD DISTRICT OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENTS; THE WACKENHUT CORPORATION AND AETNA CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY, PETITIONERS, V. RICHARD CANTY, RESPONDENT
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.
Wackenhut Corporation and Aetna sought a writ of prohibition to prevent the District Court of Appeal from entertaining an appeal of an order granting a new trial, arguing that Florida Statute § 59.04 was unconstitutional and therefore the appellate court lacked jurisdiction. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court's jurisdiction, holding that § 59.04 validly authorizes appeals from orders granting new trials in civil cases.
Florida Statute § 59.04 is constitutional and authorizes appeals from orders granting new trials in civil cases. The District Court of Appeal acted well within its jurisdiction in denying petitioners' motion to dismiss the appeal.
[1] A statute authorizing appeals from orders granting new trials in civil cases is constitutional.
[2] An appellate court has jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from an order granting a new trial.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“We held in Clement v. Aztec Sales, Inc., Case No. 44,305, 297 So. 2d 1, opinion filed June 19, 1974, that Fla. Stat. § 59.04, F.S.A., authorizes an appeal from an order granting a new trial.”
Establishes the court's holding that § 59.04 is constitutional and authorizes appeals from orders granting new trials
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCanty, the plaintiff in trial court, filed a notice of appeal to challenge an order granting a new trial based on his failure to file a remittitur. Wa…
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 Suggestion For Writ Of Prohibition cases and more on FLexlaw
ADKINS, Chief Justice.
This cause is before us on a suggestion for writ of prohibition by which petitioners seek to prohibit the District Court of Appeal, Third District, from entertaining appellate proceedings in this cause. Petitioners say that respondent, appellate court, in denying their motion to dismiss the appeal sub judice acted beyond and in excess of its constitutionally conferred jurisdiction.
Respondent, Canty, the plaintiff in the trial court, filed a notice of appeal to the District Court of Appeal, Third District, to review an order granting a new trial upon his failure to file a remittitur. Petitioners filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that Fla.Stat. § 59.04, F.S.A., which purports to authorize appeals from orders granting new trials in civil cases, is unconstitutional and, therefore, the District Court of Appeal was without jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. The District Court of Appeal denied the motion to dismiss the appeal and thereby held that an appeal would lie from the order granting a new trial.
Petitioners rely on the case of Clement v. Aztec Sales, Inc., 283 So. 2d 68 (Fla. App. 4th, 1973), which held that Fla.Stat. § 59.04, F.S.A., was unconstitutional and that an appeal does not lie from an order granting a new trial. This decision has since been reversed.
We held in Clement v. Aztec Sales, Inc., Case No. 44,305, 297 So. 2d 1, opinion filed June 19, 1974, that Fla. Stat. § 59.04, F.S.A., authorizes an appeal from an order granting a new trial. Therefore, in the case sub judice, the District Court of Appeal acted well within its jurisdiction in denying petitioners’ motion to dismiss the appeal.
Petitioners’ suggestion for writ of prohibition is hereby denied.
Additionally, petitioners have requested that we treat their suggestion for writ of prohibition, if such writ does not lie, as a petition for writ of certiorari, citing the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, in Clement v. Aztec Sales, Inc., supra, for conflict. In our reversing that decision in Clement v. Aztec Sales, Inc., Case No. 44,305, 297 So. 2d 1, opinion filed June 19, 1974, there is presently no conflict and petitioners’ petition for writ of Certiorari is, therefore, denied.
It is so ordered.
ROBERTS, ERVIN, DEKLE and OVERTON, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mendelson v. Lavine Mendelson, 341 So. 2d 811 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)…, the defendant could not have secured review of these contentions in the first appeal by the plaintiff or until, as has now occurred, a final judgment was entered against him. . Clement v. Aztec Sales, Inc., supra, n. 1; Wackenhut Corp. v. Judges, 297 So. 2d 300 (Fla.1974); Hoffman v. Jackson’s Minit Markets, Inc., 313 So. 2d 722 (Fla.1975); Bowen v. Willard, supra, n. 2. . We attach no significance whatever to the facts that the notice of appeal was filed before the ten day remittitur period had expired a…
-
Louie L. Wainwright v. Taylor, 476 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 1985)…of law, where the conflicting, incorrect cases have been eliminated as to precedential effect. Bailey v. Hough, 441 So. 2d 614 (Fla.1983) (conflicting case receded from in subsequent decision); Wackenhut Corp. v. Judges of District Court of Appeal, 297 So. 2d 300 (Fla. 1974) (conflicting case reversed). If the instant case were to reflect the correct rule of law, our task would be finished. However, as the district court appears to concede in Pannier, this case involves an incorrect rule of law. We still co…
Authorities Cited
- Clement v. Aztec Sales, Inc., 297 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1974)
- Clement v. Aztec Sales, Inc., 283 So. 2d 68 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)