ROBERT J. LAWRENCE AND LONA LAWRENCE, PETITIONERS,
v.
ORANGE COUNTY AND THE HONORABLE JOSEPH P. BAKER, CIRCUIT JUDGE, NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA, 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.
Petitioners Lawrence sought a writ of prohibition against Judge Baker to prevent further proceedings in an Orange County action, claiming the trial court erred in refusing to dismiss for failure to prosecute. The appellate court denied the petition, holding that prohibition is not an appropriate remedy for alleged erroneous application of law when jurisdiction is not at issue.
A writ of prohibition is not a proper remedy because the issue concerns an incorrect application of law rather than a lower tribunal acting without or in excess of jurisdiction. Prohibition lies only when the inferior court is without jurisdiction or attempting to act in excess of jurisdiction, not for mere erroneous exercise of jurisdiction.
[1] Prohibition is an extraordinary writ that may be granted only when a lower tribunal is without jurisdiction or is attempting to act in excess of jurisdiction.
[2] Prohibition will not lie to prevent the mere erroneous exercise of jurisdiction by an inferior tribunal.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Prohibition is an extraordinary writ extremely narrow in scope and operation by which a superior court, having appellate and supervisory jurisdiction over an inferior court or tribunal possessing judicial or quasi-judicial power, may prevent such inferior court or tribunal from exceeding its jurisdiction or usurping jurisdiction over matters not within its jurisdiction.”
Establishes the definition and proper scope of the extraordinary writ of prohibition
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOrange County filed an action against Robert and Lona Lawrence. The trial court refused to dismiss the action based on the plaintiff's failure to pros…
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 Excess Of Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., Judge.
Robert and Lona Lawrence have petitioned this court to issue a writ of prohibition against Judge Baker seeking to prevent any further proceedings in the lower court. Petitioners claim that the action below should be dismissed based on the plaintiffs’ (Orange County) failure to prosecute. Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.420(e). Prohibition is an extraordinary writ extremely narrow in scope and operation by which a superior court, having-appellate and supervisory jurisdiction over an inferior court or tribunal possessing judicial or quasi-judicial power, may prevent such inferior court or tribunal from exceeding its jurisdiction or usurping jurisdiction over matters not within its jurisdiction. English v. McCrary, 348 So. 2d 293 (Fla.1977). It will be invoked only in emergency cases to forestall an impending present injury where no other appropriate and adequate legal remedy exists, Joughin v. Parks, 107 Fla. 833, 147 So. 273 (1933), and only when damage is likely to follow the inferior body’s acting without authority of law or in excess of its jurisdiction. Curtis, et al. v. Albritton, 101 Fla. 853, 132 So. 677 (1931).
Prohibition, therefore, may generally be granted only when it is shown that the lower tribunal is without jurisdiction or is attempting to act in excess of jurisdiction. English at 296. It will not lie to prevent the mere erroneous exercise of jurisdiction by an inferior tribunal. Burkhart v. Circuit Court of Eleventh Judicial Circuit, 146 Fla. 457, 1 So. 2d 872 (1941).
In the present case, petitioners contend that the trial court’s refusal to dismiss the action for failure to prosecute is error. This issue does not involve a lower tribunal acting without or in excess of jurisdiction but rather concerns an incorrect application of the law. Prohibition is therefore not a proper remedy. Since the order complained of is not one of the non-final orders which may be appealed under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130, we could treat the petition as one requesting the issuance of a writ of common law certiorari, Rule 9.040(c), but even this remedy would not be available here because: 1) this court has already held that it will not entertain the issuance of such writ in cases where the order complained of is one where a motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution has been denied, Bowl America Florida, Inc. v. Schmidt, 386 So. 2d 1203 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980), and 2) even if otherwise proper, a petition for writ of certiorari must be filed within thirty days of the rendition of the order to be reviewed, and the petition here was filed much beyond that time. Fla.R. App.P. 9.100(c).
Petition for Writ of Prohibition is DENIED.
ORFINGER and COWART, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fla. Water Servs. Corp. v. Hannah M. "Nancy" Robinson, 856 So. 2d 1035 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…ithout jurisdiction or is attempting to act in excess of its jurisdiction. It will not lie to prevent the mere erroneous exercise of jurisdiction by an inferior tribunal. T.D.B. v. Kirk, 468 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Lawrence v. Orange County, 404 So. 2d 421 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); School Board of Marion County v. Angel, 404 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). On appeal, Florida Water argues Florida’s Administrative Procedure Act (APA) mandates recusal of the Board and thus it was entitled to a writ prohibiti…
-
Beverly Enterprises-Florida, Inc. v. Lane, 855 So. 2d 1172 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…ffectively denied Beverly’s motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution. An order which denies a motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution is not reviewable by certio-rari, but that issue can be raised on plenary appeal. See Lawrence v. Orange County, 404 So. 2d 421 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Bowl America Florida, Inc. v. Schmidt, 386 So. 2d 1203 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). The inconvenience and expense of proceeding to trial after the denial of a motion to dismiss does not constitute the type of material harm or irreparabl…
-
Brevard Cnty. v. Morehead, 181 So. 3d 1229 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015)…rdinary writ extremely narrow in scope and operation by which a superior court ..may prevent such inferior court or tribunal from exceeding its jurisdiction or usurping jurisdiction over matters not within its jurisdiction.” Lawrence v. Orange Cty., 404 So. 2d 421, 422 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981) (citing English v. McCrary, 348 So. 2d 293 (Fla.1977)). “[T]his court may grant a writ of prohibition ... where there are no disputed, issues of fact and the lower tribunal is poised to proceed without subject-matter jurisdi…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Carey English v. McCRARY, 348 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 1977)
- Gertrude A. Curtis v. Albritton, 101 Fla. 853 (Fla. 1931)
- Joughin v. Parks, 107 Fla. 833 (Fla. 1932)
- Burkhart v. Cir. Court of the Eleventh Jud. Cir. of Fla., 146 Fla. 457 (Fla. 1941)
- Bowl Am. Fla., Inc. v. Schmidt, 386 So. 2d 1203 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)