Federal_&ampamp;amp;_State_Cases，_Combined2012-03-13_15-11.DOC

《Federal_&ampamp;amp;_State_Cases，_Combined2012-03-13_15-11.DOC》由会员上传分享，免费在线阅读，更多相关内容在学术论文-天天文库。

1、Page1PageXXX821So.2d300;2002Fla.LEXIS1260,*1of4DOCUMENTSPINECRESTLAKES,INC.,ETAL.,Petitioner(s)vs.KARENSHIDEL,Respondent(s)CASENO.:SC01-2429SUPREMECOURTOFFLORIDA821So.2d300;2002Fla.LEXIS1260May31,2002,DecidedNOTICE:[*1]DECISIONWITHOUTPUBLISHEDOPINIONPRIORHISTORY:LowerTribunalNo.:4D99

2、-2641.PinecrestLakes,Inc.v.Shidel,795So.2d191,2001Fla.App.LEXIS13464(Fla.Dist.Ct.App.4thDist.2001).JUDGES:WELLS,C.J.,andSHAW,HARDING,ANSTEADandQUINCE,JJ.,concur.OPINIONThiscausehavingheretoforebeensubmittedtotheCourtonjurisdictionalbriefsandportionsoftherecorddeemednecessarytoreflect

3、jurisdictionunderArticleV,Section3(b),FloridaConstitution,andtheCourthavingdeterminedthatitshoulddeclinetoacceptjurisdiction,itisorderedthatthePetitionforReviewisdenied.NoMotionforRehearingwillbeentertainedbytheCourt.SeeFla.R.App.P.9.330(d).WELLS,C.J.,andSHAW,HARDING,ANSTEADandQUINCE

4、,JJ.,concur.Page2Page2Page7802So.2d486,*;2001Fla.App.LEXIS18251,**;27Fla.L.WeeklyD662of4DOCUMENTSPINECRESTLAKES,INC.andVILLASATPINECRESTLAKESLIMITEDPARTNERSHIP,Appellants,v.KARENSHIDEL,Appellee.CASENO.4D99-2641COURTOFAPPEALOFFLORIDA,FOURTHDISTRICT802So.2d486;2001Fla.App.LEXIS18251;27

5、Fla.L.WeeklyD66December26,2001,FiledSUBSEQUENTHISTORY:[**1]ReleasedforPublicationJuly19,2002.PRIORHISTORY:AppealfromtheCircuitCourtfortheNineteenthJudicialCircuit,MartinCounty;LarrySchack,Judge;L.T.CaseNo.96-126.OriginalOpinionReportedat:PinecrestLakes,Inc.andVillasatPinecrestLakesLi

6、mitedPartnershipv.KarneShidel,795So.2d191,2001Fla.App.LEXIS13464.DISPOSITION:Motionstorecallmandateandforleavetofilemotionforcertificationdenied.CASESUMMARY:PROCEDURALPOSTURE:OnappealfromtheCircuitCourtfortheNineteenthJudicialCircuit,MartinCounty,Florida,anopinionwasfiledanddistribut

7、ed.Havingreceivednomotionwithin15days,theinstantcourtissuedamandate.Fivedayslater,newcounselappearedonbehalfofappellantsandfiledmotionstorecallthemandateandforleavetofileamotionforcertificationofaquestionofgreatpublicimportancetothesupremecourt.OVERVIEW:Appellants'motionsexplainedtha

8、tnewcounselw