Ideal Rock Products Co. v. Henry's Drive-In of Florida, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Ideal Rock Products Co. v. Henry's Drive-In of Florida, Inc.

152 So. 2d 791, 1963 Fla. App. LEXIS 3658

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 14, 1963

DocketNo. 63-248

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 152 So. 2d 791 (Ideal Rock Products Co. v. Henry's Drive-In of Florida, Inc.) 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

Ideal Rock Products Co. v. Henry's Drive-In of Florida, Inc., 152 So. 2d 791, 1963 Fla. App. LEXIS 3658 (Fla. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The following question has been certified ¹ to this Court by the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit:

“Following the transfer of a cause under Rule 1.39(b) of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure [30 F.S.A.], from the Civil Court of Record to the Circuit Court, pursuant to mandate, can the Circuit Court, in ruling on a motion for summary judgment, consider documentary evidence, depositions and transcript of trial, properly placed in the record prior to the exceeding of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court of Record where such record has been transmitted with a certified copy of the order of transfer to the Circuit Court?”

We have examined the question, the basis upon which it was certified and the briefs of the parties.² We have determined that the question is one which should be answered under the rules previously set forth in Schwob Co. of Florida v. Florida Industrial Commission, 152 Fla. 203, 11 So.2d 782; Davies v. Davies, Fla.App.1959, 113 So.2d 250.

It has frequently been pointed out that the rules of court should be administered for an expeditious disposal of litigation in the interest of justice. Glassman v. Deauville Enterprises, Inc., Fla.App.1958, 99 So.2d 641.

Judicial work should not be repeated unless necessary to correct the error which the reviewing court found prejudicial, or unless the court lacked jurisdiction. The question certified points out that when the record was made, the Civil Court of Record had jurisdiction; therefore, the record prior to the judgment need not be discarded because the court had jurisdiction to make the record. We hold that the question certified should be and is answered in the affirmative.

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

PER CURIAM.

The following question has been certified ¹ to this Court by the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit:

“Following the transfer of a cause under Rule 1.39(b) of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure [30 F.S.A.], from the Civil Court of Record to the Circuit Court, pursuant to mandate, can the Circuit Court, in ruling on a motion for summary judgment, consider documentary evidence, depositions and transcript of trial, properly placed in the record prior to the exceeding of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court of Record where such record has been transmitted with a certified copy of the order of transfer to the Circuit Court?”

We have examined the question, the basis upon which it was certified and the briefs of the parties.² We have determined that the question is one which should be answered under the rules previously set forth in Schwob Co. of Florida v. Florida Industrial Commission, 152 Fla. 203, 11 So.2d 782; Davies v. Davies, Fla.App.1959, 113 So.2d 250.

It has frequently been pointed out that the rules of court should be administered for an expeditious disposal of litigation in the interest of justice. Glassman v. Deauville Enterprises, Inc., Fla.App.1958, 99 So.2d 641.

Judicial work should not be repeated unless necessary to correct the error which the reviewing court found prejudicial, or unless the court lacked jurisdiction. The question certified points out that when the record was made, the Civil Court of Record had jurisdiction; therefore, the record prior to the judgment need not be discarded because the court had jurisdiction to make the record. We hold that the question certified should be and is answered in the affirmative.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

152 So. 2d 791, 1963 Fla. App. LEXIS 3658, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ideal-rock-products-co-v-henrys-drive-in-of-florida-inc-fladistctapp-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack