Case ID: so2d_822/html/1243-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF the LOTTERY, Petitioner, v. GTECH CORPORATION, Respondent. Automated Wagering International, Inc., Petitioner, v. Gtech Corporation, Respondent.
    Nos. SC01-1795, SC01-1796.
    Supreme Court of Florida.
    June 6, 2002.
    Jeffrey L. Frehn and Katherine E. Gid-dings of Katz, Kutter, Haigler, Alderman, Bryant & Yon, P.A., Tallahassee, Florida, on behalf of Florida Department of'Lottery; and Sylvia H. Walbolt, Martha Harrell Chumbler, and Joseph H. Lang, Jr. of Carlton Fields, P.A., Tallahassee, Florida, on behalf of Automated Wagering International, Inc., Petitioners.
    Thomas Panza, Mark A. Emanuele, and Deborah S. Platz of Panza, Maurer, Maynard & Neel, Fort Lauderdale, Florida; and John K. Aurell, John R. Beranek, and Martin B. Sipple of Ausley & McMullen, Tallahassee, Florida, for Respondent.
   PER CURIAM

We initially accepted jurisdiction to review a decision of the First District Court of Appeal. See art. V § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. Subsequently, for purposes of oral argument, we consolidated for review two cases that arose out of Florida Department of Lottery v. Gtech Corp., 816 So.2d 648 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001), on motion for certification, 816 So.2d at 655 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001), wherein the district court certified two questions to be of great public importance. Upon reflection, and further consideration, we now conclude that review was improvidently granted. Accordingly, this review proceeding is dismissed.

It is so ordered.

WELLS, C.J., and SHAW, HARDING, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, LEWIS, and QUINCE, JJ., concur.