Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

914 So. 2d 942

Docket No. SC05-591.

Moss v. Moss

Howard MOSS, Petitioner, v. Patricia L. MOSS, Respondent.

Supreme Court of Florida

Decided October 27, 2005.

Supreme Court of Florida · decided 2005-10-27

Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently August 2013

18 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“remanded this case for reconsideration in light of this Court's decision in Lashkajani.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Moss v. Moss

Relies on 405 So. 2d 418 - Jollie v. State · 911 So. 2d 1154 - Lashkajani v. Lashkajani · City of Hollywood v. Diamond on the Beach, Inc.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2005-10-27

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Cynthia L. Greene of Greene, Smith and Associates, P.A., Miami, FL, and David M. Wall, Clearwater, FL, for Petitioner.

¶2Michael J. Park and Joseph R. Park of Park and Ossian, P.A., Clearwater, FL, for Respondent.

¶3CANTERO, J.

¶4We have for review Moss v. Moss,901 So.2d 177 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005), which cites to and certifies the same question of great public importance as Lashkajani v. Lashkajani,855 So.2d 87 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003), quashed,911 So.2d 1154 (Fla. 2005). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3)-(4), Fla. Const.; Jollie v. State,405 So.2d 418 (Fla.1981).

¶5This Court recently quashed Lashkajani and answered the certified question in the affirmative. See Lashkajani v. Lashkajani,911 So.2d 1154 (Fla. 2005). Accordingly, the Court has determined that it should summarily accept jurisdiction in Moss. It is thus ordered that the petition for review in Moss is granted; that decision is quashed; and the matter is remanded for reconsideration in light of this Court's decision in Lashkajani.

¶6No motion for rehearing will be entertained by the Court.

¶7It is so ordered.

¶8PARIENTE, C.J., and WELLS, ANSTEAD, LEWIS, QUINCE, and BELL, JJ., concur.

/914/so2d/942 · .json · Public domain