Casey-Goldsmith v. Goldsmith

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Casey-Goldsmith v. Goldsmith

735 So. 2d 610, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 9223, 1999 WL 461951

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 9, 1999

DocketNo. 99-1221

StatusPublished

This text of 735 So. 2d 610 (Casey-Goldsmith v. Goldsmith) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Casey-Goldsmith v. Goldsmith, 735 So. 2d 610, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 9223, 1999 WL 461951 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING AND CLARIFICATION

DAUKSCH, J.

Petitioner seeks to have us clarify or explain the reason for the denial of her petition for writ of certiorari. We had denied it without opinion and she says:

In order to avoid future confusion and misinterpretation of this Court’s intentions, Petitioner requests this Court to rehear and to clarify the meaning of its “denial” of the subject Petition. Petitioner wishes to avoid the possibility that this Court’s unfavorable disposition of her petition for discretionary interlocutory review will be treated as a determination on the merits of the issues raised therein, and, hence, that she will be foreclosed in the future from raising such issues in any direct appeal(s) of the final order(s) entered by the lower tribunal under the doctrine of res judicata.

We answer by aligning ourselves with the rulings in the other district courts which hold that a denial of a petition for writ of certiorari is not a ruling on the merits and does not establish law of the case. See Degrasse v. Wertheim, 566 So.2d 515, 515 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Johnson v. Florida Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co., 542 So.2d 367, 369 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); Bevan v. Wanicka, 505 So.2d 1116, 1117 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Don Mott Agency, Inc., v. Hamson, 362 So.2d 56, 58 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). Of course, if the court of appeal chooses to do so it can issue a denial on the merits, which would establish law of the case. But a denial without an opinion would not have that effect.

Motion for rehearing DENIED; Clarification GRANTED; REMANDED.

W. SHARP, and GOSHORN, JJ., concur.

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

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING AND CLARIFICATION

DAUKSCH, J.

Petitioner seeks to have us clarify or explain the reason for the denial of her petition for writ of certiorari. We had denied it without opinion and she says:

In order to avoid future confusion and misinterpretation of this Court’s intentions, Petitioner requests this Court to rehear and to clarify the meaning of its “denial” of the subject Petition. Petitioner wishes to avoid the possibility that this Court’s unfavorable disposition of her petition for discretionary interlocutory review will be treated as a determination on the merits of the issues raised therein, and, hence, that she will be foreclosed in the future from raising such issues in any direct appeal(s) of the final order(s) entered by the lower tribunal under the doctrine of res judicata.

We answer by aligning ourselves with the rulings in the other district courts which hold that a denial of a petition for writ of certiorari is not a ruling on the merits and does not establish law of the case. See Degrasse v. Wertheim, 566 So.2d 515, 515 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Johnson v. Florida Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co., 542 So.2d 367, 369 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); Bevan v. Wanicka, 505 So.2d 1116, 1117 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Don Mott Agency, Inc., v. Hamson, 362 So.2d 56, 58 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). Of course, if the court of appeal chooses to do so it can issue a denial on the merits, which would establish law of the case. But a denial without an opinion would not have that effect.

Motion for rehearing DENIED; Clarification GRANTED; REMANDED.

W. SHARP, and GOSHORN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

735 So. 2d 610, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 9223, 1999 WL 461951, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/casey-goldsmith-v-goldsmith-fladistctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack