STATE OF FLORIDA, EX REL. JAMES E. ALEXANDER, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
CARY D. LANDIS, AS SECRETARY OF THE DEMOCRATIC EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, VOLUSIA COUNTY, FLORIDA, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
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 writ of error because it was based on an interlocutory order, not a final judgment. The court emphasized that such orders cannot support a writ of error.
No, an interlocutory order, such as one granting leave to amend, does not support a writ of error.
“Such an order is interlocutory and will not support a writ of error.”
Establishes the core legal principle that interlocutory orders are not appealable via writ of error.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe relator sought a writ of mandamus to compel the Secretary of the County Democratic Executive Committee to provide a copy of a poll list from a pri…
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 Adequate Remedy cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
This is a mandamus proceeding to compel the Secretary of the County Democratic Executive Committee to furnish relator a copy of the poll list at Election District No. 2 in Volusia county at the primary election held May 10, 1904. A motion to quash the alternative writ was filed, setting forth among other grounds the failure of said writ to negative other adequate remedy. Upon the hearing of this motion the following order was made: “Motion is granted and the relator is allowed to amend his writ and petition as he may be advised.” No further or other order appears in the transcript, and the writ of error mentions specifically this order and none other. Such an order is interlocutory and will not support a writ of error. Gates v. Hayner, 22 Fla. 325.
The writ is dismissed.
Shackleford, C. J., Cockrell and Whitfield, JJ., concur. Taylor, Hocker and Parkhill, JJ., concur in the opinion.
wfflwsewswtRWWJA»/»*