Matthews v. Matthews

Supreme Court of Florida

Matthews v. Matthews

189 So. 2d 629, 1966 Fla. LEXIS 3205

Supreme Court of Florida·Decided April 20, 1966·No. No. 34625·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We have heard oral argument on the petition for certiorari to review a decision of the Court of Appeal, Second District, 177 So.2d 497, because of apparent jurisdiction in this court.

After oral argument and a careful study of the record and briefs, we conclude this: court is without jurisdiction in the matter because of lack of a direct conflict as required by the Constitution, Article V, Section 4, F.S.A.

The writ is discharged.

"THORNAL, C. J., and THOMAS, O’CONNELL, CALDWELL and BARNS-PAUL D., (Retired), JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We have heard oral argument on the petition for certiorari to review a decision of the Court of Appeal, Second District, 177 So.2d 497, because of apparent jurisdiction in this court.

After oral argument and a careful study of the record and briefs, we conclude this: court is without jurisdiction in the matter because of lack of a direct conflict as required by the Constitution, Article V, Section 4, F.S.A.

The writ is discharged.

"THORNAL, C. J., and THOMAS, O’CONNELL, CALDWELL and BARNS-PAUL D., (Retired), JJ., concur.

Matthews v. Matthews, 189 So. 2d 629, 1966 Fla. LEXIS 3205 (Fla. 1966).

Pincite

189 So. 2d 629 (Matthews v. Matthews) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related