Court Opinion

ID: 9691863
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 15:21:22.996426+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:27.447439
License: Public Domain

SUMMERS, Justice
(dissenting from the refusal to grant a rehearing).
I agree with the conclusion expressed in the Per Curiam that our original opinion was in error in holding that the pleas of prematurity were unfounded without considering the contract, letter agreement and other evidence adduced on the trial of the exception of prematurity.
I now find, however, that by the Per Curiam this Court again commits error equally as grave, for it seeks to change the basis for the original opinion without granting a rehearing and without setting out the facts or law upon which its opinion is based.
Since the Per Curiam purports to decide the plea of prematurity on its merits, I deem it appropriate to state that the pleas of prematurity should be sustained for the reasons assigned by the Court of Appeal. 226 So.2d 565.