Hendeles v. Sanford Auto Auction, Inc., 364 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 1978). · Go Syfert
Search
Hendeles v. Sanford Auto Auction, Inc., 364 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 1978). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
38 citation events (14 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Wayman Sims v. State of Florida (flsd, 2023-08-17)
Treatment trajectory · 1978 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1978 2002 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 16 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Wayman Sims v. State of Florida
S.D. Fla. · 2023 · confidence medium
As the Report explains [ECF No. 28 pp. 14–18], Mr. Williams and Petitioner were not similarly situated at the time Lewars was decided, and Florida did not misapply its so-called “pipeline” rule—a rule that requires disposition of a case on appeal to be “made in accord with the law in effect at the time of the appellate court’s decision rather than the law in effect at the time the judgment appealed was rendered.” Hendeles v. Sandford Auto Auction, Inc., 364 So. 2d 467, 468 (Fla. 1978).
cited Cited as authority (rule) JABARI KEMP v. STATE OF FLORIDA
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2019 · confidence medium
Dist. v. Kalitan, 174 So. 3d 403, 412 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (quoting Hendeles v. Sanford Auto Auction, Inc., 364 So. 2d 467, 468 (Fla. 1978)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) JABARI KEMP v. STATE OF FLORIDA
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2019 · confidence medium
Dist. v. Kalitan, 174 So. 3d 403, 412 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (quoting Hendeles v. Sanford Auto Auction, Inc., 364 So. 2d 467, 468 (Fla. 1978)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) North Broward Hospital District v. Kalitan
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
Finally, Florida’s “pipeline rule” requires that “disposition of a case on appeal should be made in accord with the law in effect at the time of the appellate court’s decision rather than the law in effect at the time -the judgment appealed was rendered.” Hendeles v. Sanford Auto Auction, Inc., 364 So.2d 467, 468 (Fla.1978); see also Stanley, 610 So.2d at 541-42 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) fladistctapp 2015
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
Finally, Florida’s “pipeline rule” requires that “disposition of a case on appeal should be made in accord with the law in effect at the time of the appellate court’s decision rather than the law in effect at the time the judgment appealed was rendered.” Hendeles v. Sanford Auto Auction, Inc., 364 So. 2d 467, 468 (Fla. 1978); see also Stanley, 610 So. 2d at 541-42 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Perez v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2013 · confidence medium
In Florida, the longstanding “pipeline” rule requires that “disposition of a case on appeal should be made in accord with the law in effect at the time of the appellate court’s decision rather than the law in effect at the time the judgment appealed was rendered.” Hendeles v. Sanford Auto Auction, Inc., 364 So.2d 467, 468 (Fla.1978).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Rivera v. Publix Super Markets, Inc.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2006 · confidence medium
See Smith v. State, 598 So.2d 1063, 1065-66 (Fla.1992) (decision "announcing a new rule of law, or merely applying an established rule of law to a new or different factual situation, must be given retrospective application by [Florida] courts in every case pending on direct review or not yet final;" issue must be raised in trial court to preserve it for review); Hendeles v. Sanford Auto Auction, Inc., 364 So.2d 467, 468 (Fla.1978) ("disposition of case on appeal should be made in accord with law in effect when appellate court's decision is made" rather than law in effect when judgment was rend…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Hudson v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2002 · confidence medium
E.g., Hendeles v. Sanford Auto Auction, Inc., 364 So.2d 467, 468 (Fla.1978); Clay v. Prudential Ins.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bledsoe v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2000 · confidence medium
Delgado governs this case under the "pipeline rule" that "[d]isposition of a case on appeal `should be made in accord with the law in effect at the time of the appellate court's decision rather than the law in effect at the time the judgment appealed was rendered.'" Nolte v. State, 726 So.2d 307, 308 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (quoting Hendeles v. Sanford Auto Auction, Inc., 364 So.2d 467, 468 (Fla.1978)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Junco v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1987 · confidence medium
NOTES [1] These appeals were consolidated for all appellate purposes. [2] See Florida Patient's Compensation Fund v. Von Stetina, 474 So.2d 783, 787 (Fla. 1985) (reviewing court required to apply law in effect at time of its decision); Hendeles v. Sanford Auto Auction, Inc., 364 So.2d 467, 468 (Fla. 1978) (same); Seaboard System R.R., Inc. v. Clemente, 467 So.2d 348, 357 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (same).
cited Cited "see" In Re Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases—Report No. 09-01
Fla. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hendeles v. Sanford Auto Auction, Inc., 364 So.2d 467 (Fla.1978); Vining v. Avis Rent-A-Car System, Inc., 354 So.2d 54 (Fla.1977).
cited Cited "see" Standard Jury Instructions-Civil Cases (No. 02-1)
Fla. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hendeles v. Sanford Auto Auction, Inc., 364 So.2d 467 (Fla.1978); Vining v. Avis Rent-A-Car Systems, Inc., 354 So.2d 54 Other exceptions may exist for which special instructions may be required.
discussed Cited "see" Florida Patient's Comp. Fund v. Von Stetina
Fla. · 1985 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hendeles v. Sanford Auto Auction, Inc., 364 So.2d 467 (Fla. 1978); Florida East Coast Railway v. Rouse, 194 So.2d 260 (Fla. 1966); Eastern Air Lines, Inc. v. Gellert, 438 So.2d 923 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Department of Administration v. Brown, *788 334 So.2d 355 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976).
discussed Cited "see" Pappadakos v. Simmon
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1985 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hendeles v. Sanford Auto Auction, Inc., 364 So.2d 467 (Fla.1978); Florida East Coast Ry. v. Rouse, 194 So.2d 260 (Fla.1966); Melick v. Melick, 393 So.2d 1186 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Zobac v. Southeastern Hospital District of Palm Beach County, 382 So.2d 829 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980).
discussed Cited "see" Eastern Air Lines, Inc. v. Gellert
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1983 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hendeles v. Sanford Auto Auction, Inc., 364 So.2d 467 ; Florida East Coast Railway Co. v. Rouse, 194 So.2d at 262 ; Winter Park Golf Estates, Inc. v. City of Winter Park, 114 Fla. 350 , 153 So. 842 (1934); Melick v. Melick, 393 So.2d 1186 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Cherokee Enterprises, Inc. v. Rogers
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1984 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Hendeles v. Sanford Auto Auction, Inc., 364 So.2d 467 (Fla. 1978).
Philip A. HENDELES, Etc., Petitioner,
v.
SANFORD AUTO AUCTION, INC., et al., Respondents.
52415.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Nov 9, 1978.
364 So. 2d 467
Per Curiam.
Cited by 35 opinions  |  Published

[*468] John M. Green, Jr. and Steven H. Gray of Green, Simmons, Green & Hightower, Ocala, for petitioner.

Andrew G. Pattillo, Jr. of Pattillo, MacKay & McKeever, Ocala and Kenneth M. Beane, Casselberry, for Sanford Auto Auction, Inc.; and Randy R. Briggs and Edwin C. Cluster of Ayres, Cluster, Curry and McCall, Ocala, for Curtis Hulsey, respondents.

PER CURIAM.

We granted certiorari in this case for conflict with Vining v. Avis Rent-A-Car Systems, Inc., 354 So.2d 54 (Fla. 1977). The estate of Carol Hendeles Brady brought an action against respondents for wrongful death caused by an automobile accident. The complaint sought damages from parties alleged to have had ownership or possession of the offending automobile, who were also alleged to have entrusted it to the driver who caused the fatal accident. Each of the respondents as parties defendant denied ownership, possession, and entrustment as to itself. Thus the question of the unauthorized use of the car, along with the circumstances surrounding it — the key was left in the ignition — was placed in issue. It appears from the record that the trial judge's order of summary judgment for the respondents was based on his belief that the evidence showed the car to have been stolen. The district court of appeal affirmed, per curiam, without opinion.

In Vining, we held that the chain of causation between the statutory violation, under Section 316.097, Florida Statutes (1975), of one in charge of an automobile who leaves it standing unattended, unlocked, with the key in the ignition, and the injury caused by the operation of the automobile by a thief, is not necessarily broken by the intervening criminal act of the driver in stealing the car. The key to proximate cause, we said, is foreseeability. The question of the foreseeability of the intervening theft under the circumstances, and of the likelihood of subsequent danger to others, when reasonable persons might differ, is for the jury.

Vining had not been decided when this case was before the trial court. But it controls now since disposition of a case on appeal should be made in accord with the law in effect at the time of the appellate court's decision rather than the law in effect at the time the judgment appealed was rendered. Florida East Coast Railway Co. v. Rouse, 194 So.2d 260 (Fla. 1967).

There were disputed issues of material fact before the trial court. The factual questions either placed in issue by the pleadings or upon which evidence was adduced in the form of documents, affidavits, and depositions included, among possible others: which of the respondents had ownership, possession or control of the vehicle, or whether they had same jointly; whether the party or parties in control of the vehicle entrusted it, negligently or otherwise, to the driver; and whether it was foreseeable under the circumstances that the car might be stolen with resultant danger to others.

[*469] Therefore, the trial court erred in holding that there were no disputed issues of material fact. And our Vining decision, filed since the time of the trial court's action, compels reversal of its implicit holding that, since it appeared the car was driven without permission, there could be no liability on the part of the person or persons having ownership or control.

The decision of the district court is quashed and it is directed that the cause be remanded to the trial court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

ENGLAND, C.J., and ADKINS, BOYD, HATCHETT and ALDERMAN, JJ., concur.