Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

STANLEY B. THOMAN ET AL., PETITIONERS, v. TIMMOTHY ASHLEY, ETC., ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

PER CURIAM.

When the petition for certiorari was presented we decided to hear argument on jurisdiction and merits.

Now having heard the argument and further studied the briefs we conclude that no conflict has been shown justifying exercise of jurisdiction of this court especially as the petitioner sought a decision of the question whether or not nonsuits are still available in our practice while the District Court of Appeal in their opinion in 170 So.2d at page 333 observed that they were "unable to reach the nonsuit question * * *."

The absence of "direct conflict * * * on the same point of law," to quote from Sec. 4(2) of Art. V of the Constitution, F.S.A., impels us to deny the petition for certiorari.

Meanwhile this court has decided in Crews v. Dobson, Fla., 177 So.2d 202, opinion filed 7 July 1965, that nonsuits are no longer recognized.

Petition for certiorari is denied.

DREW, Acting C.J., and THOMAS, CALDWELL, ERVIN and HOBSON (Retired), JJ., concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

THOMAN v. ASHLEY
(Jul 7, 1965)