Dixie Sightseeing Tours, Inc. v. Florida Transportation Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Dixie Sightseeing Tours, Inc. v. Florida Transportation Co.

154 So. 2d 196, 1963 Fla. App. LEXIS 3293

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 28, 1963

DocketNo. 62-576

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 154 So. 2d 196 (Dixie Sightseeing Tours, Inc. v. Florida Transportation Co.) 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

Dixie Sightseeing Tours, Inc. v. Florida Transportation Co., 154 So. 2d 196, 1963 Fla. App. LEXIS 3293 (Fla. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

These parties were previously before this Court in Florida Transp. Co. v. Dixie Sightseeing Tours, Inc., Fla.App.1962, 139 So.2d 175. In that opinion we held:

“The verdict and judgment in favor of the plaintiff Dixie Sightseeing Tours, Inc. is sustained on liability, but the judgment is reversed as to damages. The cause is remanded for a new trial on damages as to both defendants.”

Thereafter, plaintiff instituted a new complaint on the same cause of action. Thereupon the trial judge dismissed the second complaint with prejudice.

Upon the issuance of a mandate from this Court, a party may not abandon the cause thus litigated and proceed in a new complaint xxpon the same cause of action. While this Court has foxxnd no precedent in Florida to establish this proposition under similar facts, we rely by analogy on those cases which would refuse to allow an amendment of pleadings after the mandate of the appellate court which would set up a new cause of action and present a different basis for relief. This reasoning applies equally to a situation where, after mandate, a plaintiff abandons the basis of the cause of action and seeks to establish another by filing a new complaint. [197]*197See Palm Beach Estates v. Croker, 106 Fla. 617, 143 So. 792; Federal Land Bank of Columbia v. Brooks, 139 Fla. 506, 190 So. 737.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

These parties were previously before this Court in Florida Transp. Co. v. Dixie Sightseeing Tours, Inc., Fla.App.1962, 139 So.2d 175. In that opinion we held:

“The verdict and judgment in favor of the plaintiff Dixie Sightseeing Tours, Inc. is sustained on liability, but the judgment is reversed as to damages. The cause is remanded for a new trial on damages as to both defendants.”

Thereafter, plaintiff instituted a new complaint on the same cause of action. Thereupon the trial judge dismissed the second complaint with prejudice.

Upon the issuance of a mandate from this Court, a party may not abandon the cause thus litigated and proceed in a new complaint xxpon the same cause of action. While this Court has foxxnd no precedent in Florida to establish this proposition under similar facts, we rely by analogy on those cases which would refuse to allow an amendment of pleadings after the mandate of the appellate court which would set up a new cause of action and present a different basis for relief. This reasoning applies equally to a situation where, after mandate, a plaintiff abandons the basis of the cause of action and seeks to establish another by filing a new complaint. [197]*197See Palm Beach Estates v. Croker, 106 Fla. 617, 143 So. 792; Federal Land Bank of Columbia v. Brooks, 139 Fla. 506, 190 So. 737.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

154 So. 2d 196, 1963 Fla. App. LEXIS 3293, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dixie-sightseeing-tours-inc-v-florida-transportation-co-fladistctapp-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack