Taylor v. Knight, M-172
| Decision Date | 17 March 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. M-172,M-172 |
| Citation | 234 So.2d 156 |
| Parties | Cleo TAYLOR and Eddie Taylor, Jr., her husband, Appellants, v. Lizzie March KNIGHT, Leonard Forbes, Jr., and Lallye Wilson Forbes, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Truett & Watkins, Tallahassee, for appellants.
W. K. Whitfield, and Robert C. Dean of the Law Office of John A. Rudd, Tallahassee, for appellees.
Affirmed.
Appellants by their attorney have filed a petition for rehearing in which they state inter alia:
'To enter a 'PER CURIAM AFFIRMED' opinion in this cause is to deprive these Appellants of their constitutional right to seek review in the Supreme Court of Florida as provided in Article V, Section 4, of the Constitution of the State of Florida * * *.
'Appellants are being denied their constitutional right to full review by this court's refusing to issue a written opinion showing the factual situation involved * * *.
'Appellants have presented to this court a valid, meritorious legal issue and are entitled to consideration of the merits in the form of a written opinion so full avail might be taken of the right to seek review by certiorari in the Supreme Court of Florida without the added difficulty of extracting portions of the record to support the jurisdictional prerequisite of conflict.
'* * * It is to deny Appellants their constitutional right to review when this court refuses to write an opinion regardless of the end result reached.'
Irrespective of the foregoing allegations, appellants then negate the validity of their position by asserting that the conflict in end result is sufficient to warrant review by the Supreme Court, a Per Curiam Affirmance notwithstanding, under the authority of Foley v. Weaver Drugs, Inc., 177 So.2d 221 (Fla.1965).
Appellants' learned counsel apparently is traveling upon a misconception as to the scope of appellate jurisprudence in this State. The respective District Courts of Appeal in the State of Florida are courts of final appellate jurisdiction except for a narrow classification of cases made reviewable by the Supreme Court. Article V, Section 5(3), Constitution of the State of Florida, F.S.A. These courts were not established by the people of Florida as intermediate appellate courts or 'way stations' to the Supreme Court of Florida. Each of the some eight hundred cases reviewed by this Court in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State Com'n on Ethics v. Sullivan
...all points raised by all appealing parties and found them to be without merit." Id. at 31. Of similar import is Taylor v. Knight, 234 So.2d 156 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970), where this court denied a petition for rehearing of a PCA which urged that the appellants were entitled to consideration of th......
-
Time, Inc. v. Firestone
...note that the litigants are not entitled to a written opinion on each or any point as a matter of constitutional right. Taylor v. Knight, Fla.App.1970, 234 So.2d 156. Without laboring the matter further, if it was the intendment of the Supreme Court to cause this court to reconsider its ear......
-
McCluster v. Wainwright
...5 Cir. 1970, 433 F.2d 137; Lawyers Title Ins. Corp. v. Little River Bank and Trust Co., 243 So.2d 417 (Fla.1970); and Taylor v. Knight, 234 So.2d 156 (Fla. App.1st 1970). 5 Although unnecessary to our disposition of this case, it appears that Florida law would preclude McCluster from any re......
-
State v. Hayes
...classification of cases made reviewable by the Florida Supreme Court, Ansin v. Thurston, 101 So.2d 808 (Fla.1958); Taylor v. Knight, 234 So.2d 156 (1st DCA Fla.1970). The District Courts of Appeal are required to follow Supreme Court decisions. Hoffman v. Jones, 280 So.2d 431 (Fla.1973). As......