Florida Department of the Lottery v. Gtech Corp.

Supreme Court of Florida

Florida Department of the Lottery v. Gtech Corp.

822 So. 2d 1243, 27 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 563, 2002 Fla. LEXIS 1157

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedJune 6, 2002

DocketNos. SC01-1795, SC01-1796

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 822 So. 2d 1243 (Florida Department of the Lottery v. Gtech Corp.) 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

Florida Department of the Lottery v. Gtech Corp., 822 So. 2d 1243, 27 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 563, 2002 Fla. LEXIS 1157 (Fla. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

We initially accepted jurisdiction to review a decision of the First District Court of Appeal. See art. V § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. Subsequently, for purposes of oral argument, we consolidated for review two cases that arose out of Florida Department of Lottery v. Gtech Corp., 816 So.2d 648 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001), on motion for certification, 816 So.2d at 655 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001), wherein the district court certified two questions to be of great public importance. Upon reflection, and further consideration, we now conclude that review was improvidently granted. Accordingly, this review proceeding is dismissed.

It is so ordered.

WELLS, C.J., and SHAW, HARDING, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, LEWIS, and QUINCE, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM

We initially accepted jurisdiction to review a decision of the First District Court of Appeal. See art. V § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. Subsequently, for purposes of oral argument, we consolidated for review two cases that arose out of Florida Department of Lottery v. Gtech Corp., 816 So.2d 648 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001), on motion for certification, 816 So.2d at 655 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001), wherein the district court certified two questions to be of great public importance. Upon reflection, and further consideration, we now conclude that review was improvidently granted. Accordingly, this review proceeding is dismissed.

It is so ordered.

WELLS, C.J., and SHAW, HARDING, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, LEWIS, and QUINCE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

822 So. 2d 1243, 27 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 563, 2002 Fla. LEXIS 1157, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/florida-department-of-the-lottery-v-gtech-corp-fla-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack