Cone v. Cone

22 Citing cases

  1. Griffen v. Arkansas Judicial Discipline

    355 Ark. 38 (Ark. 2003)   Cited 11 times

    Hamilton also stated in that same essay that although "individual oppression may now and then proceed from the courts of justice, the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter; I mean so long as the judiciary remains truly distinct from the legislative and the Executive." Id. The Florida Supreme Court set out these same concerns in Cones v. Cones, 68 So. 2d 886 (1953): When a lawyer dons the ermine and mounts the woolsack he assumes a very serious obligation to the people he serves.

  2. Combs v. Judicial Conduct Comm'n

    2016-SC-000301-RR (Ky. Mar. 23, 2017)

    There is nothing unfair about holding Judge Combs to a higher standard than that expected of an ordinary citizen, as "[a]ll judges are held to a higher standard by virtue of the Code of Judicial Conduct." Thomas v. Judicial Conduct Commission, 77 S.W.3d 578, 580 (Ky. 2002); see also, Cone v. Cone, 68 So. 2d 886, 888 (Fla. 1953) ("From the time he is clothed with judicial authority he is a marked man. His words and his conduct should inspire confidence; he might well strive to honor the bench instead of having it honor him.

  3. In re Code of Jud. Conduct

    603 So. 2d 494 (Fla. 1992)   Cited 5 times

    In In re LaMotte, 341 So.2d 513, 517 (Fla. 1977), this Court removed a judge from office and stated: "Judges should be held to even stricter ethical standards [than attorneys] because in the nature of things even more rectitude and uprightness is expected of them." Cf. Cone v. Cone, 68 So.2d 886, 888 (Fla. 1953) ("From the time he is clothed with judicial authority he is a marked man. . . . The judiciary is the capstone of our democracy but it will be so no longer than its deportment warrants.") The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court concluded that, although "a judge is entitled to lead his own private life free from unwarranted intrusion," because he is subject to constant scrutiny "he must adhere to standards of probity and propriety higher than those deemed acceptable for others." In re Troy, 364 Mass. 15, 306 N.E.2d 203, 235 (Mass.

  4. In re Shenberg

    632 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 1992)   Cited 2 times

    The criminal allegations against the petitioners shake the foundation upon which a free society is built: a fair, just, and independent judiciary. As this Court noted in Cone v. Cone, 68 So.2d 886, 888 (Fla. 1953), "[t]he administration of justice is the most important business of the State. Said Emanual Comptee: `When justice is gone it is no longer important that men live on this earth.'" Few events are more egregious and derogatory to the image or perception of the judiciary than for one of its members to be charged with selling its decisions.

  5. Blackhawk Heat. P. Co. v. Data Lease Fin. Corp.

    328 So. 2d 825 (Fla. 1975)   Cited 39 times
    Holding that when a trial court receives a mandate from an appellate court, it should carry it out

    A trial court is without authority to alter or evade the mandate of an appellate court absent permission to do so. Cone v. Cone, 68 So.2d 886 (Fla. 1953). If the trial court fails or refuses to comply with the appellate court's mandate, the latter may, generally speaking, take any steps or issue any appropriate writ necessary to give effect to its judgment. State ex rel. Dowling Co. v. Parks, 99 Fla. 1264, 128 So. 837 (1930).

  6. Am. Hosp. and Life Ins. Co. v. Runnels

    128 So. 2d 383 (Miss. 1961)

    III. The lower court erred in visiting unwarranted abuse on counsel for appellant in the presence of the jury. Cone v. Cone (Fla.), 68 So.2d 886; Giglio v. Valdez (Fla.), 114 So.2d 305; Hansen v. St. Paul City R. Co. (Minn.), 43 N.W.2d 260; Hays v. Viscome (Cal.), 264 P.2d 173; In re Parkside Housing Project, Conner Warren Ave., City of Detroit v. Vandenbroker, 290 Mich. 582, 287 N.W. 571; Annos. 62 A.L.R. 2d 166, 176, 253; 53 Am. Jur., Sec. 88 p. 82. IV. The lower court erred in overruling appellant's motion for a new trial, in that the verdict of the jury is manifestly contrary to the law and overwhelming weight of the evidence.

  7. J.M. v. A.J.D.

    337 So. 3d 333 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2022)   Cited 1 times

    Thus, "a trial court is without authority to alter or evade the mandate of an appellate court absent permission to do so." Cone v. Cone, 68 So. 2d 886, 887 (Fla. 1953). In this case, we affirmed an order of the circuit court overruling exceptions and ratifying the report of a hearing officer.

  8. Ketcher v. Ketcher

    198 So. 3d 1061 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 9 times
    Holding that trial court exceeded mandate set forth in Ketcher I

    Tierney v. Tierney, 290 So.2d 136, 137 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974). The lower court must strictly follow the mandate and does not have authority to alter the mandate in any way. See Cone v. Cone, 68 So.2d 886, 887 (Fla.1953) (“[A] trial court is without authority to alter or evade the mandate of an appellate court absent permission to do so.”); Basic Energy Corp. v. Hamilton Cty., 667 So.2d 249, 250 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (“A trial court does not have discretionary power to alter or modify the mandate of an appellate court in any way, shape or form....”). Where, as here, the final judgment is reversed and remanded with specific instructions, the lower court has authority to conduct further proceedings in conformity with the instructions but the court cannot exceed the specific bounds of that instruction.

  9. Russell v. McQueen

    115 So. 3d 1084 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 2 times
    Refusing to allow deduction for health insurance father pays for himself when calculating his gross income error

    The principle has been firmly established in the law since early times that when an appellate court issues its mandate, the trial court is obligated to comply without deviation. See Blackhawk Heating & Plumbing Co., Inc. v. Data Lease Fin. Corp., 328 So.2d 825 (Fla.1975); O.P. Corp. v. Vill. of N. Palm Beach, 302 So.2d 130 (Fla.1974); Cone v. Cone, 68 So.2d 886 (Fla.1953); Baskin v. Klemm, 118 Fla. 657, 160 So. 509 (1935); State ex rel. Dowling Co. v. Parks, 99 Fla. 1264, 128 So. 837 (1930); Curry v. State, 16 So.3d 933 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); Robinson v. Weiland, 988 So.2d 1110 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008); Formor v. State, 923 So.2d 563 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006); Mendelson v. Mendelson, 341 So.2d 811 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); City of Miami Beach v. Arthree, Inc., 300 So.2d 65 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). We do not attribute to the trial court any conscious effort to deviate, but charge the errors that were made to the confusion (noted several times in Father's brief) that cast a pall over the remand proceedings.

  10. McAllister v. Breakers Seville Ass'n

    41 So. 3d 405 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 7 times
    Stating that, under Florida's Declaratory Judgments Act, supplemental relief "includes all relief necessary, including money judgments"

    Having determined that the trial court erred in failing to grant a declaratory judgment, and reversing on that issue, McAllister was entitled to a declaratory judgment in his favor in accordance with the rulings by our court. It is well-settled that a trial court is without authority to alter or evade the mandate of an appellate court absent permission to do so. Blackhawk Heating Plumbing Co. v. Data Lease Fin. Corp., 328 So.2d 825, 827 (Fla. 1975); Cone v. Cone, 68 So.2d 886, 887 (Fla. 1953). When a case has been decided on appeal, the lower court is bound by the decree as the law of the case, and must carry it into execution according to the mandate.