Equibank, N. A. v. Penland

343 So. 2d 678, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 15492
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided March 18, 1977·No. No. CC-405·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks reversal of an order of the trial judge dismissing its complaint with prejudice. Appellant concedes that Reese v. Damato, 44 Fla. 692, 33 So. 462 (1902) is contrary to its contentions but urges that the antiquity of that case in the light of modern pleading practices requires that we recede from its holding. Although we are of the view that even were it not for the holding of Reese v. Damato, supra, the learned trial judge would have nevertheless been correct in dismissing appellant’s complaint under the circumstances of this particular case, we agree that the teachings of Reese v. Damato, permits no other result and even should we be of the view that those teachings are anachronistic or incorrect it is not our prerogative to “recede” from an opinion of our Supreme Court. (Hoffman v. Jones, 280 So.2d 431 (Fla.1973).

AFFIRMED.

BOYER, C. J., and MILLS AND ERVIN, JJ., concur.

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

Equibank, N. A. v. Penland, 343 So. 2d 678, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 15492 (Fla. Ct. App. 1977).

343 So. 2d 678 (Equibank, N. A. v. Penland) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Richardson
343 So. 2d 678 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1977)