Dean v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc.
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
| Citation | 438 So.2d 1 |
| Docket Number | No. 62437,62437 |
| Parties | Ronald DEAN, Petitioner, v. PUBLIX SUPERMARKETS, INC., etc., Respondent. |
| Decision Date | 25 August 1983 |
Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal--Direct Conflict of Decisions; Third District--Case Nos. 81-1806, 81-1850 & 81-1632.
Robert D. Klausner of Pelzner, Schwedock, Finkelstein & Klausner, Miami, for petitioner.
John-Edward Alley and Robert D. Hall, Jr. of Alley & Alley, Tampa, for respondent.
Edward S. Jaffry and William L. Grossenbacher of Horne, Rhodes, Jaffry & Horne, Tallahassee, for Fla. Ass'n of Plumbing, Heating and Cooling Contractors, Inc.; A. Thomas Mihok of Dempsey & Slaughter, Orlando, for Central Fla. Chapter, Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc.; Karen L. Goldsmith and Gary L. Summers of Dempsey & Slaughter, Orlando, for The Fla. Health Care Ass'n and The Florida Health Care Self-Insurers' Fund; Susan Minor, Asst. General Counsel, Coral Gables, for The Wackenhut Corp.; and Joseph Z. Fleming of Fleming & Huck, Miami, for Wynne Enterprises, Inc., of Hialeah, et al., amici curiae.
We accepted jurisdiction of this cause pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(3) of the Florida Constitution based on direct and express conflict between the opinion of the Third District Court of Appeal, Publix Supermarkets, Inc. v. Dean, 416 So.2d 12 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), and that of the First District Court of Appeal in Piezo Technology and Professional Administrators, Inc. v. Smith, 413 So.2d 121 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), approved, 427 So.2d 182 (Fla.1983). Because our holding approving the First District Court of Appeal controls this cause, we quash the decision of the Third District and remand for further proceedings consistent with our opinion in Piezo Technology.
It is so ordered.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rose v. State, 86-688
...offense must be dismissed on the defendant's motion. 2 Palmer v. State, 416 So.2d 878 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), aff'd. in part; rev'd. in part, 438 So.2d 1 (Fla.1983). 3 Holmes v. State, 453 So.2d 533 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Brown v. State, 413 So.2d 1273 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), affirmed, 430 So.2d 44......
-
State v. Enmund, 66264
...twenty-five-year sentences should be concurrent instead of consecutive. In reaching this conclusion the court relied on Palmer v. State, 438 So.2d 1 (Fla.1983). We find, however, that Palmer does not control the instant Palmer used one revolver to rob thirteen people at the same time. After......
-
LeCroy v. State, 69484
...overruled Hegstrom and held that sentences on both felony murder and the underlying felony were appropriate. Relying on Palmer v. State, 438 So.2d 1 (Fla.1983), appellant argues that it was error to impose minimum mandatory sentences of three years on each of the two robbery convictions. In......
-
Benson v. State, 86-2431
...those crimes occurred from a single incident. We disagree. The Florida Supreme Court addressed this type of issue in Palmer v. State, 438 So.2d 1 (Fla.1983), a pre-sentencing guidelines case which has continuing validity under the guidelines. See State v. Suarez, 485 So.2d 1283 (Fla.1986). ......