Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

135 Fla. 769

186 So 250

Williams v. Keyes

Supreme Court of Florida

Decided December 14, 1938

Supreme Court of Florida · decided 1938-12-14

Relies on Paul Bros. v. Long Branch & Lakeside Special Road & Bridge District

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1938-12-14

How this case has been cited

Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently January 2001

2 federal appellate · 17 state decisions

8019381940195019601970198019902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1A petition for rehearing filed for the appellants asserts in effect, in paragraph numbered 1, that *809 the appellants have been denied their constitutional and statutory rights "for that this court, over the objection and protest of the appellants in open court made, has required said appeal to be returnable upon a day less than 30 days from the entry thereof," etc.

¶2An appeal was taken by the appellants November 15, 1938, which gave this court appellate jurisdiction of the cause upon filing the entry of appeal. A certified transcript of the record was filed in this Court, and the cause, with several kindred causes, was orally argued fully and at length upon the merits by counsel for all parties and finally submitted on the day agreed on by all counsel, December 1, 1938. The cause was fully considered by the court before decision rendered December 14, 1938.

¶3There was no suggestion of a diminution of the record which is required when the record is incomplete and no request for leave to file any motion, brief or other document not on file in this court, when or after the cause was finally submitted on its merits. No objection was at any time made to the final presentation and submission of the cause to the court. The court acted with full and complete power and authority as it had hitherto done in causes of the same nature.

¶4The persons who are sought to be recalled are among the appellants who were before the court, and their counsel fully presented and submitted the claimed rights of the parties who are sought to be recalled.

¶5The petition for rehearing has been duly considered. It is not well founded. The assertions above referred to, to the effect that there has been a denial by the court of organic and statutory rights of appellants, are regarded by this court as being improper, and are hereby eliminated. Paul Bros. v. L.B. Special Rd. Bridge Dist., 83 Fla. 706, t. 708, 92 So. 687, t. 688. *810

¶6Rehearing denied.

¶7TERRELL, J., and WHITFIELD, BROWN, BUFORD, CHAPMAN, and THOMAS, J.J., concur.

¶8

ORDER ON MOTION TO VACATE STAY ORDER.

/135/fla/769 · .json · Public domain