Hennig v. Hennig

185 So. 2d 457, 1966 Fla. LEXIS 3628
Supreme Court of Florida·Decided April 20, 1966·No. No. 34465·Published

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of certiorari reflected probable jurisdiction in this court, and the writ was issued. Argument has been heard and upon further consideration and a careful review of the briefs, we are unable to find sufficient conflict with the decisions of this court or of the other district courts of appeal to vest jurisdiction in this court as required by the Constitution, Article V, Section 4, F.S.A.

The writ therefore must be and it is hereby discharged and the petition for writ of certiorari is dismissed.

It is so ordered.

THORNAL, C. J., O’CONNELL and CALDWELL, JJ., and WARREN, Circuit Judge, concur. ERVIN, J., dissents with opinion.

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

Hennig v. Hennig, 185 So. 2d 457, 1966 Fla. LEXIS 3628 (Fla. 1966).

185 So. 2d 457 (Hennig v. Hennig) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hennig v. Hennig
162 So. 2d 288 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1964)
McGregor v. Provident Trust Co.
162 So. 323 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1935)
Mabson v. Mabson
140 So. 801 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1932)
Marquette v. Hathaway
76 So. 2d 648 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1954)
Hennig v. Hennig
178 So. 2d 603 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1965)