Ellsworth v. Nash Miami Motors, Inc.

142 So. 2d 733, 1962 Fla. LEXIS 2694
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedMay 16, 1962
DocketNo. 31498
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 142 So. 2d 733 (Ellsworth v. Nash Miami Motors, 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
Ellsworth v. Nash Miami Motors, Inc., 142 So. 2d 733, 1962 Fla. LEXIS 2694 (Fla. 1962).

Opinions

DREW, Justice.

Writ of certiorari has issued in this cause directed to a decision 1 of the District Court of Appeal, Third District, which reversed, upon appeal, a verdict and judgment for plaintiff in a negligence action because of a finding that statements by defendant were, under F.S. §§ 317.13-317.17, F.S.A.,2 erroneously admitted into evidence.

The jurisdictional issue presented by the petition3 involves, initially, a determina[734]*734tion of conflict between the decision in the case at bar and those in earlier cases before this Court.4 The court in this case was faced with the question of whether the statute makes inadmissible a statement given subsequent to initial police inquires at an accident, prefaced by direct warning of constitutional privileges and possibility of use against deponent, and in response to questioning allegedly for the purpose not of reporting the accident but determining the necessity for criminal charges.

Upon this point of conflict we are on further consideration unable to accept petitioner’s contentions because our examination of the cited cases indicates that none involved the critical point of law now in dispute. Nor can we agree that the court reached its conclusion by attributing to any previous case an unwarranted effect as controlling precedent upon the pivotal point.5 The question decided in this case was therefore one of first impression not reviewable by certiorari in this Court in the absence of certification or other constitutional ground of jurisdiction.6 The writ should accordingly be discharged and the petition dismissed, disposition of issues raised by respondent being, in this situation, unnecessary.

It is so ordered.

ROBERTS, C. J., and TERRELL, THOMAS, THORNAL, O’CONNELL and CALDWELL, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Adams v. State
448 So. 2d 1201 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1984)
Porter v. Pappas
368 So. 2d 909 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1979)
Mitchell v. State
227 So. 2d 728 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1969)
State v. Coffey
212 So. 2d 632 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1968)
Coffey v. State
205 So. 2d 559 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1967)
Tomayko v. Thomas
151 So. 2d 272 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1963)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
142 So. 2d 733, 1962 Fla. LEXIS 2694, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ellsworth-v-nash-miami-motors-inc-fla-1962.