Judges: CHAPMAN, J.
Attorneys: Thomas J. Ellis and Kunkel White, for Petitioner;
A.C. Franks, for Respondent.
Filed: Mar. 11, 1941
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 459 This is a case of original jurisdiction in prohibition. The petition for the writ alleges in part, that the Honorable Worth W. Trammell and Arthur Gomez, judges of the Circuit Court of Dade County, Florida, have acted and are continuing to act contrary to law in the case of Burkhart v. Burkhart, 144 Fla. 168 , 197 So. 730 , a proceeding for divorce, tempo
Summary: [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 459 This is a case of original jurisdiction in prohibition. The petition for the writ alleges in part, that the Honorable Worth W. Trammell and Arthur Gomez, judges of the Circuit Court of Dade County, Florida, have acted and are continuing to act contrary to law in the case of Burkhart v. Burkhart, 144 Fla. 168 , 197 So. 730 , a proceeding for divorce, tempor..
More
Upon a closer study, on this petition for rehearing, of the cases of Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 24 Law Ed. 565, and Pennington v. Fourth National Bank, 243 U.S. 269,61 L. Ed. 713, I think we reached an erroneous conclusion as to the meaning and effect of those cases as applied to the instant case, and that therefore the petition for rehearing should be granted.
