Celeste v. Kerns

Supreme Court of Florida

Celeste v. Kerns

32 So. 3d 611, 34 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 246, 2009 Fla. LEXIS 251, 2009 WL 465930

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedFebruary 26, 2009

DocketSC08-1926

StatusPublished

This text of 32 So. 3d 611 (Celeste v. Kerns) 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

Celeste v. Kerns, 32 So. 3d 611, 34 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 246, 2009 Fla. LEXIS 251, 2009 WL 465930 (Fla. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We have for review Celeste v. Kerns, 990 So.2d 9 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008), in which the First District Court of Appeal cited as authority its decision Lowry v. Central Leasing Management, Inc., 988 So.2d 1113 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008), denying rehearing of 18 So.3d 550 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008), quashed, Lowry v. Central Leasing Management, Inc., 3 So.3d 1189 (Fla., 2009). By the time the First District’s Celeste decision became final on denial of rehearing, its Lowry decision was pending review in this Court. We have jurisdiction. See art. Y, § (3)(b)(3), Fla. Const.; Jollie v. State, 405 So.2d 418 (Fla.1981).

As we had done in Lownj, we stayed proceedings in this case pending our disposition of Murray v. Mariner Health, 994 So.2d 1051 (Fla.2008). When our decision in Murray became final, we issued an order directing respondents in the present case to show cause why we should not accept jurisdiction, summarily quash the decision being reviewed, and remand for reconsideration in light of our decision in Murray. Upon consideration of respondents’ response and petitioner’s reply thereto, we have determined to so proceed.

We thus grant the petition for review in this case, quash the decision below, and remand for reconsideration upon application of our decision in Murray. Petitioner’s pending motion to lift stay is accordingly denied as moot.

It is so ordered.

QUINCE, C.J., and WELLS, PARIENTE, LEWIS, CANADY, POLSTON, and LABARGA, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We have for review Celeste v. Kerns, 990 So.2d 9 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008), in which the First District Court of Appeal cited as authority its decision Lowry v. Central Leasing Management, Inc., 988 So.2d 1113 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008), denying rehearing of 18 So.3d 550 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008), quashed, Lowry v. Central Leasing Management, Inc., 3 So.3d 1189 (Fla., 2009). By the time the First District’s Celeste decision became final on denial of rehearing, its Lowry decision was pending review in this Court. We have jurisdiction. See art. Y, § (3)(b)(3), Fla. Const.; Jollie v. State, 405 So.2d 418 (Fla.1981).

As we had done in Lownj, we stayed proceedings in this case pending our disposition of Murray v. Mariner Health, 994 So.2d 1051 (Fla.2008). When our decision in Murray became final, we issued an order directing respondents in the present case to show cause why we should not accept jurisdiction, summarily quash the decision being reviewed, and remand for reconsideration in light of our decision in Murray. Upon consideration of respondents’ response and petitioner’s reply thereto, we have determined to so proceed.

We thus grant the petition for review in this case, quash the decision below, and remand for reconsideration upon application of our decision in Murray. Petitioner’s pending motion to lift stay is accordingly denied as moot.

It is so ordered.

QUINCE, C.J., and WELLS, PARIENTE, LEWIS, CANADY, POLSTON, and LABARGA, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 So. 3d 611, 34 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 246, 2009 Fla. LEXIS 251, 2009 WL 465930, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/celeste-v-kerns-fla-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack