Rose v. North American Van Lines

133 So. 3d 914, 34 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 328, 2009 WL 1324044, 2009 Fla. LEXIS 786
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedMay 14, 2009
DocketNo. SC07-2432
StatusPublished

This text of 133 So. 3d 914 (Rose v. North American Van Lines) 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
Rose v. North American Van Lines, 133 So. 3d 914, 34 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 328, 2009 WL 1324044, 2009 Fla. LEXIS 786 (Fla. 2009).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We have for review Rose v. North American Van Lines, 969 So.2d 1165 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007), in which the First District Court of Appeal cited as authority its decision in Flamily v. City of Orlando, 924 So.2d 78 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006), quashed sub nom. Sanders v. City of Orlando, 997 So.2d 1089 (Fla.2008). At the time the First District issued its Rose decision, Flamily was pending review in this Court (having been restyled Sanders v. City of Orlando due to petitioner’s death and the substitution of the personal representative of his estate). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.; Jollie v. State, 405 So.2d 418 (Fla.1981).

We stayed proceedings in . this case pending our disposition of Sanders, in which we ultimately quashed the First District’s underlying Flamily decision. See Sanders v. City of Orlando, 997 So.2d 1089 (Fla.2008). We then issued an order directing respondents in the present case to show cause why we should not accept jurisdiction, summarily quash the decision under review, and remand for reconsideration in light of our Sanders decision. Respondents concede in their response that they have no reason to contest such action by this Court.

We thus grant the petition for review in the present case. The decision under review is quashed, and this matter is remanded to the First District for reconsideration upon application of this Court’s decision in Sanders.

It is so ordered.

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

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

Related

Jollie v. State
405 So. 2d 418 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1981)
Sanders v. City of Orlando
997 So. 2d 1089 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2008)
Rose v. North American Van Lines
969 So. 2d 1165 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2007)
Flamily v. City of Orlando
924 So. 2d 78 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
133 So. 3d 914, 34 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 328, 2009 WL 1324044, 2009 Fla. LEXIS 786, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rose-v-north-american-van-lines-fla-2009.