Gian-Cursio v. State

196 So. 2d 105
Supreme Court of Florida·Decided October 12, 1966·No. Nos. 35058, 35050·Published

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

We granted certiorari and have heard oral argument. The decisions under review are Gian-Cursio v. State, and Epstein v. State, Fla.App., 180 So.2d 396. Our study of the record and briefs leads us to conclude that there is no jurisdictional conflict of decisions and that the writ was therefore improvidently issued and should be discharged. See, Hampton v. State, 50 Fla. 55, 39 So. 421, and, State v. Heines, 144 Fla. 272, 197 So. 787.

It is so ordered.

THORNAL, C. J., and O’CONNELL, CALDWELL, ERVIN and SEBRING (Ret.), JJ., concur. ROBERTS, J., dissents with opinion. DREW, J., dissents and agrees with ROBERTS, J.

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

Gian-Cursio v. State, 196 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 1966).

196 So. 2d 105 (Gian-Cursio v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Gian-Cursio v. State
180 So. 2d 396 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1965)
Baldor v. Rogers
81 So. 2d 658 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1955)
State v. Heines
197 So. 787 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1940)
Hampton v. State
50 Fla. 55 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1905)