Opinion
No. 65872.
August 22, 1985. Rehearing Denied October 28, 1985.
Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal — Direct Conflict of Decisions; Fourth District — Case Nos. 83-2514 and 83-2515.
F. Kendall Slinkman, West Palm Beach, for petitioner.
Bennett Falk and Patricia E. Cowart of Ruden, Barnett, McClosky, Schuster and Russell, Miami, for Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner Smith, Inc.
H. Michael Easley of Easley, Massa and Willits, West Palm Beach, for Brian Sheen.
We have for review Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner Smith, Inc. v. Melamed, 453 So.2d 858 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), which expressly and directly conflicts with Oppenheimer Co., Inc. v. Young, 456 So.2d 1175 (Fla. 1984), vacated, ___ U.S. ___, 105 S.Ct. 1830, 85 L.Ed.2d 131 (1985). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. We also have jurisdiction because Melamed declared subsection 517.241(2), Florida Statutes (1983), invalid. Art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.
We approve Melamed in light of Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Byrd, ___ U.S. ___, 105 S.Ct. 1238, 84 L.Ed.2d 158 (1985), and the subsequent vacation and remand of our contrary holding in Young.
It is so ordered.
BOYD, C.J., and ADKINS, OVERTON, ALDERMAN, McDONALD, EHRLICH and SHAW, JJ., concur.