Case Name: FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF the LOTTERY, Petitioner, v. GTECH CORPORATION, Respondent; Automated Wagering International, Inc., Petitioner, v. Gtech Corporation, Respondent
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2002-06-06
Citations: 822 So. 2d 1243
Docket Number: Nos. SC01-1795, SC01-1796
Parties: FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF the LOTTERY, Petitioner, v. GTECH CORPORATION, Respondent. Automated Wagering International, Inc., Petitioner, v. Gtech Corporation, Respondent.
Judges: WELLS, C.J., and SHAW, HARDING, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, LEWIS, and QUINCE, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 822
Pages: 1243–1243

Head Matter:
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.

Opinion:
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.