People of State of N.Y., Application of
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
| Writing for the Court | PER CURIAM; TERRELL |
| Citation | 112 So.2d 837 |
| Parties | Application of the PEOPLE OF the STATE OF NEW YORK for an order requiring one Joseph C. O'NEILL to Attend and Testify Before the Grand Jury of the County of New York, State of New York. |
| Decision Date | 10 June 1959 |
Page 837
Page 838
Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., Reeves Bowen, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Frank S. Hogan, Dist. Atty., New York County, New York City, for appellant.
L. J. Cushman, Miami, for appellee.
PER CURIAM.
The judgment of this court was entered 22 January 1958, 100 So.2d 149, affirming the decree of the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, 9 Fla.Supp. 153, in the above styled cause. On petition for writ of certiorari the judgment was reversed and the cause remanded by the Supreme Court of the United States in an opinion filed March 2, 1959.
Upon reconsideration, therefore, the cause is remanded to the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit for further proceedings consistent with the law of the State of Florida and the mandate and opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States, and it is
Ordered that the People of the State of New York shall have and recover their costs of $395.57 taxed by the Supreme Court of the United States, as well as their costs expended in this court in the appeal of this cause, and that judgment for those amounts be entered in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit against Joseph C. O'Neill and that execution issue therefor.
TERRELL, C. J., and THOMAS, HOBSON, THORNAL and O'CONNELL, JJ., concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jackson By and Through Whitaker v. Hertz Corp., No. 88-2261
...responsibility. Certainly the terms of a bailment, either restricted or general, can have no bearing upon that question. [e.s.] Susco, 112 So.2d at 837. But see Stupak. 3 It is plain from these principles and the cases which have applied them, that the dangerous instrumentality doctrine app......
-
Chandler v. GEICO Indem. Co., Nos. SC10–1068
...doctrine, consent “is simply consent to the use or operation of such an instrumentality beyond [the owner's] immediate control,” Susco, 112 So.2d at 837, and that consent cannot be vitiated except by “a species of conversion or theft.” Id. at 836. Under this precedent, it is clear that Avis......
-
Avis Rent-A-Car Systems, Inc. v. Garmas, RENT-A-CAR
...escape responsibility. Certainly the terms of a bailment, either restricted or general, can have no bearing upon that question. [e.s.] 112 So.2d at 837. It is clear that, by the very same token, Lawrence's operation of the car when he was not supposed to was likewise merely a breach of the ......
-
Dockery v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car Co., No. 4D00-2512.
...authority or consent is simply consent to the use or operation of such an instrumentality beyond his own immediate control." Susco, 112 So.2d at 837. The court explained that "when control of [a rental automobile] is voluntarily relinquished to another only a breach of custody amo......
-
Jackson By and Through Whitaker v. Hertz Corp., No. 88-2261
...responsibility. Certainly the terms of a bailment, either restricted or general, can have no bearing upon that question. [e.s.] Susco, 112 So.2d at 837. But see Stupak. 3 It is plain from these principles and the cases which have applied them, that the dangerous instrumentality doctrine app......
-
Chandler v. GEICO Indem. Co., Nos. SC10–1068
...doctrine, consent “is simply consent to the use or operation of such an instrumentality beyond [the owner's] immediate control,” Susco, 112 So.2d at 837, and that consent cannot be vitiated except by “a species of conversion or theft.” Id. at 836. Under this precedent, it is clear that Avis......
-
Avis Rent-A-Car Systems, Inc. v. Garmas, RENT-A-CAR
...escape responsibility. Certainly the terms of a bailment, either restricted or general, can have no bearing upon that question. [e.s.] 112 So.2d at 837. It is clear that, by the very same token, Lawrence's operation of the car when he was not supposed to was likewise merely a breach of the ......
-
Dockery v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car Co., No. 4D00-2512.
...authority or consent is simply consent to the use or operation of such an instrumentality beyond his own immediate control." Susco, 112 So.2d at 837. The court explained that "when control of [a rental automobile] is voluntarily relinquished to another only a breach of custody amo......