Melick v. Melick

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Melick v. Melick

393 So. 2d 1186, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 19489

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 13, 1981

DocketNo. VV-167

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 393 So. 2d 1186 (Melick v. Melick) 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

Melick v. Melick, 393 So. 2d 1186, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 19489 (Fla. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The trial judge, on motion for rehearing, refused to consider Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980), which was decided the day after final judgment in this case was rendered. Disposition of a case on appeal, however, must be founded on the law in effect when the appellate court reached its decision rather than the law in effect at the time the lower court reached its decision. Hendeles v. Sanford Auto Auction, Inc., 364 So.2d 467 (Fla.1978); Perez v. Perez, 383 So.2d 252 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1980). Without suggesting that his rulings on the merits were correct or incorrect, we remand to the trial judge for consideration of the issues in light of the principles set forth in Canakaris v. Canakaris, supra.

REMANDED.

ERVIN, BOOTH and JOANOS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The trial judge, on motion for rehearing, refused to consider Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980), which was decided the day after final judgment in this case was rendered. Disposition of a case on appeal, however, must be founded on the law in effect when the appellate court reached its decision rather than the law in effect at the time the lower court reached its decision. Hendeles v. Sanford Auto Auction, Inc., 364 So.2d 467 (Fla.1978); Perez v. Perez, 383 So.2d 252 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1980). Without suggesting that his rulings on the merits were correct or incorrect, we remand to the trial judge for consideration of the issues in light of the principles set forth in Canakaris v. Canakaris, supra.

REMANDED.

ERVIN, BOOTH and JOANOS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

393 So. 2d 1186, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 19489, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/melick-v-melick-fladistctapp-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack