Equibank, N. A. v. Penland

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Equibank, N. A. v. Penland

343 So. 2d 678, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 15492

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 18, 1977

DocketNo. CC-405

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 343 So. 2d 678 (Equibank, N. A. v. Penland) 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

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

343 So. 2d 678, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 15492, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/equibank-n-a-v-penland-fladistctapp-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack