Norwood v. State, 86 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 1956). · Go Syfert
Search
Norwood v. State, 86 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 1956). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“we have examined the authorities relied on by petitioners and they appear to deal with the question of reformation of an instrument for mistake in contents. we are concerned here with the right to strike down an instrument for error in the reasons for executing it.”
21 citation events across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: In Re Estate of Robinson (fladistctapp, 1998-08-05)
Treatment trajectory · 1956 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1956 1991 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) In Re Estate of Robinson
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1998 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
we have examined the authorities relied on by petitioners and they appear to deal with the question of reformation of an instrument for mistake in contents. we are concerned here with the right to strike down an instrument for error in the reasons for executing it.
cited Cited "see, e.g." In re Estate of Floeckher
Fla. Cir. Ct. · 1987 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Forsythe v. Speilberger, 86 So.2d 427 (Fla. 1950).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Johnson v. State
Fla. · 1978 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Norwood v. State, 86 So.2d 427 (Fla. 1956).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Henry NORWOOD, Appellant,
v.
The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Mar 28, 1956.
86 So. 2d 427
Roberts.
Cited by 12 opinions  |  Published

Frank Ragano, Tampa, and Finch & Mosley, Clearwater, for appellant.

Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., and David U. Tumin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

ROBERTS, Justice.

We have carefully examined the record and briefs filed in this cause and have heard the argument of counsel at the bar of this court. We find no error requiring a reversal of the judgment convicting the appellant of the two offenses of which he was found guilty by the jury, but have concluded that the trial judge erred in imposing a separate sentence on each charge, to run consecutively. The derelictions of which appellant was found guilty were simply two facets of one transaction, so it was error to sentence him on each count. Wheeler v. State, Fla. 1954, 72 So.2d 364; Williams v. State, Fla. 1954, 69 So.2d 766.

The judgment of guilt is affirmed, but the sentence is vacated and the cause remanded for proper sentencing.

DREW, C.J., and THOMAS and THORNAL, JJ., concur.