STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
VICTOR C. VOGEL AND EDWARD A. SMITH, RESPONDENTS

Fla. 2d DCA | 1982-06-18
No. 82-809
SCHEB, C. J., and SCHOONOVER, J., concur.
415 So. 2d 821 Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (1982) Positive Treatment
Cited by 6 cases

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.

Holding

The court held that a trial court cannot reverse a ruling solely to allow appellate review, as this is akin to seeking an advisory opinion.

Facts & Procedural History

The state petitioned for a writ of common law certiorari to review a trial court order granting a motion in limine to exclude Williams rule evidence. …

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.

Topics
Piecemeal Appeals Williams Rule Evidence Williams Rule Advisory Opinion

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Piecemeal Appeals cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court
BOARDMAN, Judge.

BOARDMAN, Judge.

The state petitions for writ of common law certiorari to review a trial court order granting defendants’/respondents’ motion in limine, thereby excluding certain Williams rule evidence. We grant the writ.

The trial court originally denied respondents’ motion, only to reverse itself after the lunch recess and grant the motion, not for the reason that it was convinced that such a ruling was correct, but merely to give the state the opportunity to seek appellate review. We think such action is analogous to seeking an advisory opinion, which is not within the jurisdiction of this court under the current appellate rules. See generally 3 Fla.Jur.2d Appellate Review § 440.1

It is absolutely essential to the speedy and proper disposition of cases pending in the judicial system that our trial judges make a reasoned determination of all issues before them rather than deferring to the judgment of the appellate courts, which engenders piecemeal and perhaps unnecessary appeals and results in undue delay and additional expense. This court will not review issues which the trial court has not previously decided; the initial decision is the responsibility of the trial court.

Accordingly, certiorari is granted, the trial court’s order granting respondents’ motion in limine is quashed, and the cause is remanded for a prompt ruling by the trial court using its best judgment and based on the facts and the law, which is the responsibility and duty of a trial judge.

SCHEB, C. J., and SCHOONOVER, J., concur. . Even under the prior appellate rules, specifically Florida Appellate Rule 4.6, a question could be certified from a circuit court to an appellate court only if the question was without controlling precedent in this state. F.A.R. 4.6(a).

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Raymond H. Wood, Jr., D.D.S. v. Dep't of Prof'l Reg., 490 So. 2d 1079 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
    …en established for action on physician’s petition for reinstatement of license to practice medicine, Board was required to make specific findings of fact and state the policy reasons supporting the Board’s denial of petition). . See State v. Vogel, 415 So. 2d 821 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)(district court of appeal is not empowered to issue advisory opinions). . See Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks of United States of America, Miami Lodge No. 948 v. Dade County, 166 So. 2d 605 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)(taxpayer not…
  • Patten v. State, 531 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)
    …tters may be considered on remand with prior permission of the appellate court. Rinker Materials Corp. v. Holloway Materials Corp., 175 So. 2d 564 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965). Yet, it is beyond dispute that we do not render advisory opinions. State v. Vogel, 415 So. 2d 821, 822 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). I, like the trial judge, am not sure how this matter could have been more properly handled. I would affirm.…
  • Greenhalgh v. State, 641 So. 2d 908 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)
    …not indicate the county and circuit of his conviction; nor does he state that he has filed a motion, pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 which has been heard, determined and denied. We do not issue advisory opinions. State v. Vogel, 415 So. 2d 821 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). Accordingly, the petition is dismissed without prejudice to the petitioner filing an appropriate petition in the proper jurisdiction. It is so ordered. NESBITT, LEVY and GODERICH, JJ., concur.…

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw