Banores v. Austin

240 So. 2d 850
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided November 13, 1970·No. No. 70-144·Published

Opinion

MANN, Judge.

Appellant argues that the denial to a wife of damages for loss of consortium while our law allows them to a similarly-deprived husband violates the equal protection clause of our federal constitution, U. S. Const. Amend. XIV, and Section 4 of the Declaration of Rights of the Florida constitutions, F.S.A. As a legal matter, Wilson v. Redding, Fla.App.1962, 145 So.2d 252, and Ripley v. Ewell, Fla.1952, 61 So.2d 420, seem to preclude recovery. But the constitutional questions are squarely raised and accordingly we lack jurisdiction under Fla.Const. Art. V, Section 5. Section 4 vests in the Supreme Court jurisdiction of appeals in which the trial court has construed a controlling provision of the state or federal constitution. Section 5 gives us a residual jurisdiction.

Appeal transferred to the Supreme Court.

HOBSON, C. J., and LILES, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Banores v. Austin, 240 So. 2d 850 (Fla. Ct. App. 1970).

240 So. 2d 850 (Banores v. Austin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Wilson v. Redding
145 So. 2d 252 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1962)
Ripley v. Ewell
61 So. 2d 420 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1952)