Medlin v. Department of Environmental Regulation

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Medlin v. Department of Environmental Regulation

616 So. 2d 636

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 23, 1993

DocketNo. 92-1910

StatusPublished

This text of 616 So. 2d 636 (Medlin v. Department of Environmental Regulation) 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

Medlin v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 616 So. 2d 636 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

DAUKSCH, Judge.

This is an appeal from an order granting a “Motion for Permission to Re-Open Case.” We treat the order as one granting a new trial because that is the practical effect of it. This order was entered after a previous appeal and an opinion and mandate in this case. See Kings Point Utility, Inc. v. Dep’t of Envtl. Reg., 588 So.2d 691 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). Apparently our opinion in that appeal was not clear. We said “... which could include an order on the oral declaration of involuntary dismissal or a continuation of the trial from the point after appellee rested.” Id. at 692. We then said the same trial judge should hear the case on remand. We should have said, in order to be more clear, that upon remand the trial judge could either render a proper order on his oral declaration of involuntary dismissal or permit a continuation of the trial from the point after appellee rested. We reverse the order and remand for further proceedings — either dismiss the case or resume the trial, allowing appellant to present his defense, if any, then rebuttal evidence, if any, and argument, then the verdict and judgment.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

W. SHARP and DIAMANTIS, JJ., concur.

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

DAUKSCH, Judge.

This is an appeal from an order granting a “Motion for Permission to Re-Open Case.” We treat the order as one granting a new trial because that is the practical effect of it. This order was entered after a previous appeal and an opinion and mandate in this case. See Kings Point Utility, Inc. v. Dep’t of Envtl. Reg., 588 So.2d 691 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). Apparently our opinion in that appeal was not clear. We said “... which could include an order on the oral declaration of involuntary dismissal or a continuation of the trial from the point after appellee rested.” Id. at 692. We then said the same trial judge should hear the case on remand. We should have said, in order to be more clear, that upon remand the trial judge could either render a proper order on his oral declaration of involuntary dismissal or permit a continuation of the trial from the point after appellee rested. We reverse the order and remand for further proceedings — either dismiss the case or resume the trial, allowing appellant to present his defense, if any, then rebuttal evidence, if any, and argument, then the verdict and judgment.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

W. SHARP and DIAMANTIS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

616 So. 2d 636, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/medlin-v-department-of-environmental-regulation-fladistctapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack