Lowry v. Central Leasing Management, Inc.

3 So. 3d 1189, 34 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 246, 2009 Fla. LEXIS 252, 2009 WL 465840
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedFebruary 26, 2009
DocketNo. SC08-1543
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 3 So. 3d 1189 (Lowry v. Central Leasing Management, Inc.) 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
Lowry v. Central Leasing Management, Inc., 3 So. 3d 1189, 34 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 246, 2009 Fla. LEXIS 252, 2009 WL 465840 (Fla. 2009).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We have for review Lowry v. Central Leasing Management, Inc., 33 Fla. L. Weekly D1241, — So.3d-, 2008 WL 1930055 (Fla. 1st DCA May 5, 2008), in which the First District Court of Appeal cited as authority its decision in Murray v. Manners Health/ACE USA, 946 So.2d 38 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006), quashed, 994 So.2d 1051 (Fla.2008). See also Lowry v. Central Leasing Management, Inc., 988 So.2d 1113 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (additionally certifying a question of great public importance). When the First District issued its decision in Lowry, its Murray decision was pending review in this Court. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § (3)(b)(3)-(4), Fla. Const.; Jollie v. State, 405 So.2d 418 (Fla.1981).

We stayed proceedings in this case pending our disposition of Murray v. Mariner Health, 994 So.2d 1051 (Fla.2008), in which we quashed the First District’s underlying Murray decision. When our de-[1190]*1190cisión in Murray became final, we issued an order directing respondents in the present case to show cause why we should not exercise jurisdiction, summarily quash the decision being reviewed, and remand for reconsideration in light of our decision in Murray. Respondents in their response concede that we should so proceed.

Accordingly, we grant the petition for review in this case, quash the decision below, and remand for reconsideration upon application of our decision in Murray.

It is so ordered.

QUINCE, C.J., and WELLS, PARIENTE, LEWIS, CANADY, POLSTON, and LABARGA, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Celeste v. Kerns
32 So. 3d 611 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
3 So. 3d 1189, 34 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 246, 2009 Fla. LEXIS 252, 2009 WL 465840, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lowry-v-central-leasing-management-inc-fla-2009.