State ex rel. La Vigne Electric Co. v. Floyd

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State ex rel. La Vigne Electric Co. v. Floyd

131 So. 2d 208

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided June 9, 1961·No. Nos. 61-264, 61-265·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

A rule nisi in prohibition was issued in each of these cases. No return has been made by the respondent. We have therefore considered the allegations of the suggestion and the documents in support thereof. See State ex rel. Ginsberg v. Wiseheart, Fla.App.1960, 120 So.2d 810.

We hold that the suggestion makes a prima facie case. A trial judge may not grant a petition for rehearing addressed to a summary final judgment. Cf. Marans v. Stang, Fla.App.1960, 124 So.2d 891.

Accordingly, judgment in prohibition is awarded, but we assume it will not be necessary to issue the writ.

HORTON, C. J., and PEARSON, and CARROLL, CHAS., JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

A rule nisi in prohibition was issued in each of these cases. No return has been made by the respondent. We have therefore considered the allegations of the suggestion and the documents in support thereof. See State ex rel. Ginsberg v. Wiseheart, Fla.App.1960, 120 So.2d 810.

We hold that the suggestion makes a prima facie case. A trial judge may not grant a petition for rehearing addressed to a summary final judgment. Cf. Marans v. Stang, Fla.App.1960, 124 So.2d 891.

Accordingly, judgment in prohibition is awarded, but we assume it will not be necessary to issue the writ.

HORTON, C. J., and PEARSON, and CARROLL, CHAS., JJ., concur.

State ex rel. La Vigne Electric Co. v. Floyd, 131 So. 2d 208 (Fla. Ct. App. 1961).

Pincite

131 So. 2d 208 (State ex rel. La Vigne Electric Co. v. Floyd) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related