JACK F. WHITE, AS COUNTY JUDGE OF PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA AND BLANCHE JOHNSON
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, EX REL. BARBARA JOYCE JOHNSON, ET AL.
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 reversed a prohibition writ issued against a county judge, holding that prohibition does not lie to prevent a court from proceeding within its jurisdiction merely because errors might occur. The court reaffirmed that prohibition is a narrow remedy restricted to cases where a court lacks jurisdiction, not a vehicle for reviewing the correctness of judicial decisions.
Prohibition does not lie to prevent or correct errors committed by a court proceeding within its jurisdiction. The judgment issuing the peremptory writ of prohibition was reversed because the county judge had proper jurisdiction over the case and parties.
“Prohibition does not lie to prevent or correct commission of errors on part of court that is proceeding within its jurisdiction.”
Establishes the fundamental principle that prohibition is not a remedy for judicial errors when a court has jurisdiction
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBarbara Joyce Johnson sought a writ of prohibition to prevent County Judge Jack F. White from conducting further testimony hearings in a case previous…
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 Peremptory Writ cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal of a final judgment in prohibition wherein a peremptory writ is issued.
The first appearance of the subject matter of this case was in Johnson v. Johnson, 158 Fla. 315, 28 So. 2nd 438.
The second appearance was a mandamus proceeding in the circuit court, seeking to have the court direct the manner in which the county judge should proceed, which mandamus was denied by the circuit court and affirmed by this court — State ex rel. Johnson v. White, 160 Fla. 782, 36 So. 2nd. 224
The real party in interest to the present proceedings is Blanche Johnson, appellant. Appellee, Barbara Joyce Johnson is the same party who brought the first appeal, who also' brought the mandamus action, and who later sought prohibition to prevent the county judge from further proceedings by the taking of testimony at- a hearing .upon the issues presented and recited in Johnson v. Johnson, supra.
*966Respecting the use of prohibition, this Court, in the Lorenzo-Murphy case, cited with approval the prior holdings, to-wit:
“In the case of Peacock, County Judge, et al. v. Miller decided February 28,1938, as reported in 123 Fla. 97,166 So. 212, this court held: ‘Prohibition does not lie to prevent or correct commission of errors on part of court that is proceeding within its jurisdiction.”” — Lorenzo v. Murphy, 158 Fla. 315, 32 So. 2nd 521, 423.
And also:
“In the case of Adams et ux v. Lewis et al., decided February 18, 1941, as reported in 146 Fla. 177, 200 So. 852, 853, this Court, speaking through Mr. Justice ELWYN THOMAS, • said:— ‘. . . proceedings in prohibition should be restricted to the field for which they were meant and not become a vehicle for the determination of questions involving the correct or incorrect decisions of another court in matters in which that court has the authority to act.’ ’’ — Ibid.
It affirmatively appears that the county judge had jurisdiction over a case of the class then before him and over the parties to the proceedings and that the jurisdiction of the court had been properly invoked. The trial court has jurisdiction to proceed, and such errors as may actually occur may be reviewed only in the ordinary and regular manner. Jurisdiction naturally includes the power to err, which of course is not to be anticipated, but, even if correctly anticipated, neither the mere fear of error nor reasonable certainty of error in the exercise of jurisdiction will impair jurisdiction.
The judgment appealed is reversed.
THOMAS, C. J., CHAPMAN and ADAMS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State of Fla. ex rel. Dep't OF Gen. Servs. v. Willis, 344 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)…uit court’s power to act at all in the controversy, not with any error in the court’s failure to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action. See State ex rel. Hill v. Hearn, 99 So. 2d 231 (Fla.1957); White v. State ex rel. Johnson, 160 Fla. 965, 37 So. 2d 580 (1948). We therefore treat the complaint as though it alleges or is amendable to allege the Department’s bidding and contract procedure violates Section 255.29, Florida Statutes (1975), requiring adoption of rules achieving awards of…
-
State Ex Rel. Losey v. Willard, 54 So.2d 183 (Fla. 1951)…orrect errors made by a trial court in the exercise of its jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter. State ex rel. Jennings v. Frederick, 137 Fla. 773, 189 So. 1; Adams v. Lewis, 146 Fla. 177, 200 So. 852; White v. State ex rel. Johnson, 160 Fla. 965, 37 So. 2d 580; State ex rel. Johnson v. Anderson, Fla., 1948, 37 So. 2d 910; Harrison v. Murphy, 132 Fla. 579, 181 So. 386; Peacock v. Miller, 123 Fla. 97, 166 So. 212; State ex rel. Schwarz v. Heffernan, 142 Fla. 137, 194 So. 313; Lorenzo v. Murph…
Authorities Cited
- Peacock v. Lon Miller, 123 Fla. 97 (Fla. 1936)
- Johnson v. Blanche Johnson, 158 Fla. 315 (Fla. 1946)
- Adams v. Miles W. Lewis, 146 Fla. 177 (Fla. 1941)
- Beulah Herman v. State, 160 Fla. 782 (Fla. 1948)
- Sweat v. Moore, 160 Fla. 782 (Fla. 1948)