ST. PAUL TITLE INSURANCE CORPORATION, PETITIONER,
v.
FLOYD E. DAVIS, JR., MARTIN R. WEST, JR., AND LOUIS C. PALADINI, NOT INDIVIDUALLY BUT AS TRUSTEES OF MORTGAGE INVESTORS OF WASHINGTON, FOREIGN BUSINESS TRUST, RESPONDENTS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court dismissed a petition for review of a per curiam district court affirmance, holding that the 'all writs necessary' provision cannot be used to circumvent the jurisdictional limitations in the conflict review provision and does not serve as an independent basis for appellate jurisdiction.
The Court held that it lacks jurisdiction. The all writs provision does not confer added appellate jurisdiction and cannot be used as an independent basis of jurisdiction to circumvent the jurisdictional limitations of the conflict review provision in section 3(b)(3).
[1] The "all writs necessary" provision of article V, section 3(b)(7) of the Florida Constitution does not confer added appellate jurisdiction on the Florida Supreme Court.
[2] The Florida Supreme Court's "all writs" power cannot be used as an independent basis of jurisdiction to circumvent statutory limitations on appellate review.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“We will not allow the 'all writs necessary' provision of section 3(b)(7) to be used to circumvent the clear language of section 3(b)(3) and our holding in Jenkins v. State that we lack jurisdiction to review per curiam decisions of the several district courts of appeal of this state rendered without opinion when the basis for such review is an alleged conflict of that decision with another.”
Establishes the core holding that the all writs provision cannot be used to evade jurisdictional limitations.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA district court issued a per curiam affirmance without opinion affirming the trial court's decision. St. Paul Title Insurance Corporation sought revi…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Appellate Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
ALDERMAN, Justice.
By way of a petition under the “all writs necessary” provision of article V, section 3(b)(7), Florida Constitution (1980), filed after April 1, 1980, petitioner seeks review of a district court decision affirming per cu-riam without opinion the trial court’s decision. Respondents have moved to dismiss the petition on the basis of lack of jurisdiction. Petitioner’s alternate petition for “conflict” review filed under article V, section 3(b)(3) from this same per curiam af-firmance was dismissed sua sponte by this Court by order, 385 So. 2d 761 (Fla. 1980), because the new section 3(b)(3) does not permit our review of district court decisions which merely read in their entirety: “Per Curiam. Affirmed.” See Jenkins v. State, 385 So. 2d 1356 (Fla. 1980).
We will not allow the “all writs necessary” provision of section 3(b)(7) to be used to circumvent the clear language of section 3(b)(3) and our holding in Jenkins v. State that we lack jurisdiction to review per cu-riam decisions of the several district courts of appeal of this state rendered without opinion when the basis for such review is an alleged conflict of that decision with another. The all writs provision of section 3(b)(7) does not confer added appellate jurisdiction' on this Court, and this Court’s all writs power cannot be used as an independent basis of jurisdiction as petitioner is hereby seeking to use it. Besoner v. Crawford, 357 So. 2d 414 (Fla. 1978); Shevin ex rel. State v. Public Service Commission, 333 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 1976).
We are without jurisdiction in this matter, and, accordingly, we grant respondents’ motion and dismiss petition for review under the “all writs necessary” provision of article V, section 3(b)(7), Florida Constitution.
It is so ordered.
SUNDBERG, C.J., and BOYD and OVERTON, JJ., concur. ADKINS, J., dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (21 total)
-
Persaud v. State, 838 So. 2d 529 (Fla. 2003)…her than a petition for an extraordinary writ, because the district court had not provided any form of written opinion supporting its per curiam affirmance. After discussing the decisions in both Jenkins and St. Paul [Title Insurance Corp. v. Davis, 392 So. 2d 1304 (Fla.1980) ], this Court concluded that it was without jurisdiction to entertain petitioner Grate’s petition.... Id. at 978 (citations omitted). The reasoning and holding in Grate, even though specifically applicable to extraordinary writ petition…
-
Grate v. State, 750 So. 2d 625 (Fla. 1999)…er curiam affirmed decision without a written opinion where the basis for review is an alleged conflict between that decision and an opinion issued by either this Court or another district court of appeal. In St. Paul Title Insurance Corp. v. Davis, 392 So. 2d 1304, 1304-05 (Fla.1980), this Court further held that a petitioner could not utilize the Court’s “all writs” jurisdiction to seek discretionary review of a per curiam affir-mance without opinion. In so holding, the Court stated that it would “not allow…
-
Sims v. State, 998 So. 2d 494 (Fla. 2008)…its” provision of the Florida Constitution does not grant the Court jurisdiction to review cases. Instead, we must have an independent basis for jurisdiction. See Williams v. State, 913 So. 2d 541, 543 (Fla.2005); St. Paul Title Ins. Corp. v. Davis, 392 So. 2d 1304, 1305 (Fla.1980). The majority treats the notice as one seeking review based on express and direct conflict. This is an appropriate use of Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.040, and one which both we and the courts of appeal regularly employ. Su…
Previewing 3 of 21 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Jenkins v. State, 385 So. 2d 1356 (Fla. 1980)
- Shevin v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 333 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 1976)
- Besoner v. Grady Crawford, 357 So. 2d 414 (Fla. 1978)