Casas v. SIEMENS ENERGY AND AUTOMATION, INC.

969 So. 2d 356, 32 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 712, 2007 Fla. LEXIS 2168, 2007 WL 3377114
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedNovember 15, 2007
DocketSC06-1063
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 969 So. 2d 356 (Casas v. SIEMENS ENERGY AND AUTOMATION, INC.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Casas v. SIEMENS ENERGY AND AUTOMATION, INC., 969 So. 2d 356, 32 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 712, 2007 Fla. LEXIS 2168, 2007 WL 3377114 (Fla. 2007).

Opinion

969 So.2d 356 (2007)

Rodolfo CASAS, Petitioner,
v.
SIEMENS ENERGY AND AUTOMATION, INC., Respondent.

No. SC06-1063.

Supreme Court of Florida.

November 15, 2007.

Philip D. Parrish, Miami, Florida, and Donna B. Michelson, Coconut Grove, Florida, for Petitioner.

John H. Pelzer of Ruden, McClosky, Smith, Schuster and Russell, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, Florida, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

We have for review Casas v. Siemens Energy & Automation, Inc., 927 So.2d 922 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006), in which the Third District Court of Appeal cited with approval its decision in Bombay Co., Inc. v. Bakerman, 891 So.2d 555 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004), quashed, 961 So.2d 259 (Fla.2007). At the time the Third District Court issued its decision in Casas, Bakerman was pending review in this Court. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.; Jollie v. State, 405 So.2d 418 (Fla.1981).

We stayed proceedings in this case pending disposition of Bakerman, in which this Court ultimately quashed the Third District Court's underlying Bakerman decision. See Bakerman v. Bombay Co., Inc., 961 So.2d 259 (Fla.2007). We accordingly issued an order directing respondent to show cause why we should not accept jurisdiction in the present case, quash the Casas decision, and remand for reconsideration in light of our decision in Bakerman. Upon consideration of respondent's response, petitioner's reply thereto, and the parties' previously filed jurisdictional briefs, we have determined to so proceed.

We accordingly grant the petition for review in the present case. The decision under review is quashed and this matter is remanded to the Third District Court of Appeal for reconsideration upon application of this Court's decision in Bakerman.

It is so ordered.

*357 LEWIS, C.J., and WELLS, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, QUINCE, CANTERO, and BELL, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Casas v. SIEMENS ENERGY AND AUTOMATION, INC.
1 So. 3d 294 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
969 So. 2d 356, 32 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 712, 2007 Fla. LEXIS 2168, 2007 WL 3377114, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/casas-v-siemens-energy-and-automation-inc-fla-2007.