Olympic Manufacturing Co. v. Shepherd

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Olympic Manufacturing Co. v. Shepherd

190 So. 2d 588, 1966 Fla. App. LEXIS 4926

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 11, 1966

DocketNo. 66-355

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 190 So. 2d 588 (Olympic Manufacturing Co. v. Shepherd) 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

Olympic Manufacturing Co. v. Shepherd, 190 So. 2d 588, 1966 Fla. App. LEXIS 4926 (Fla. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff, Olympic Manufacturing Company, takes this interlocutory appeal from an order granting rehearing.

This cause which was concluded on January 11, 1966, was heard before Judge Ray Pearson. Judge Pearson dictated the final decree on January 11, 1966. On January 12, 1966 Judge Pearson’s term of office expired. On January 17, 1966, his successor, Judge Gene Williams signed the decree which had been dictated by Judge Pearson.

Judge Williams granted rehearing on the ground that the decree is void because he was without jurisdiction to sign and enter it-

“It is generally stated that a successor judge may complete any acts uncompleted by his predecessor where they do not require the successor to weigh and compare testimony.” Bradford v. Foundation & Marine Construction Co., Fla.App.1966, 182 So.2d 447, 449; See Groover v. Walker, Fla.1956, 88 So.2d 312.

We conclude from the above that Judge Williams had the authority to sign and enter the final decree. Therefore, it was error to grant the defendant’s petition for rehearing. We have also reviewed defendant’s contention on cross-appeal and find it to be without merit.

Accordingly the order appealed is reversed.

Reversed.

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