T-Jett Enterprises, Inc. v. Ernest & Stewart, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

T-Jett Enterprises, Inc. v. Ernest & Stewart, Inc.

554 So. 2d 592, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 7149, 1989 WL 153775

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 19, 1989

DocketNo. 89-2152

StatusPublished

This text of 554 So. 2d 592 (T-Jett Enterprises, Inc. v. Ernest & Stewart, Inc.) 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

T-Jett Enterprises, Inc. v. Ernest & Stewart, Inc., 554 So. 2d 592, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 7149, 1989 WL 153775 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Following this court’s opinion reported in T-Jett Enterprises v. Ernest and Stewart, Inc., 543 So.2d 890 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), the matter recurred in the trial court on a motion to enforce mandate. As a result the trial court ordered the garnished funds to be held in escrow by several orders. The defendant appeals the last of these orders which we treat as a motion to enforce mandate, see Article V, Section 4 of the Florida Constitution, and we remand with instructions to return the funds garnished to the garnishee, as though the garnishment had not taken place in the first instance. Silverman v. Lichtman, 296 So.2d 495 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974).

Reversed and remanded with directions.

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

PER CURIAM.

Following this court’s opinion reported in T-Jett Enterprises v. Ernest and Stewart, Inc., 543 So.2d 890 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), the matter recurred in the trial court on a motion to enforce mandate. As a result the trial court ordered the garnished funds to be held in escrow by several orders. The defendant appeals the last of these orders which we treat as a motion to enforce mandate, see Article V, Section 4 of the Florida Constitution, and we remand with instructions to return the funds garnished to the garnishee, as though the garnishment had not taken place in the first instance. Silverman v. Lichtman, 296 So.2d 495 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974).

Reversed and remanded with directions.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

554 So. 2d 592, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 7149, 1989 WL 153775, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/t-jett-enterprises-inc-v-ernest-stewart-inc-fladistctapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack