PAMELA JOYCE JONES STOKES AND RIGSBY THOMAS JONES, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS CO-TRUSTEES OF THE DOROTHY C. JONES AMENDED AND RESTATED LIVING TRUST AGREEMENT DATED AUGUST 16, 2010
v.
FREDERICK DONALD JONES, ANNETTE LORAINE HODGES, CLINT JAMES JONES, DENISE JONES, ROBYN D. STOKES GRIFFIN, STEWART STOKES, JAMIE LYNN NAFF, QUINN N. JONES, 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.
Petitioners sought a writ of prohibition to prevent a trial court from proceeding with discovery deadlines while another prohibition petition was pending in the same underlying case. The First District Court of Appeal granted the petition, finding that issuance of an order to show cause in the related prohibition case had automatically stayed further trial court proceedings.
The court granted the petition for writ of prohibition and quashed the trial court's order, holding that the issuance of the order to show cause in the related prohibition case automatically stayed further proceedings in the trial court, depriving the trial court of jurisdiction to enter the challenged order.
[1] Issuance of an order directing a respondent to show cause in a prohibition proceeding stays further proceedings in the lower tribunal.
[2] A trial court lacks jurisdiction to rule on a matter when proceedings in that matter have been stayed by a superior court's order to show cause in a related prohibition p…
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“Prohibition is an extraordinary writ . . . by which a superior court . . . may prevent [an] inferior court or tribunal from exceeding jurisdiction or usurping jurisdiction over matters not within its jurisdiction.”
Establishes the definition and purpose of a 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 intelligenceThe trial court entered an order on April 6, 2020, setting near-term discovery and other deadlines. At the time the trial court issued this order, pet…
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 Extraordinary Writ cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioners seek a writ of prohibition related to a trial court order dated April 6, 2020, setting near-term discovery and other
deadlines in a case in which another writ of prohibition case is currently pending in this Court. “Prohibition is an extraordinary writ . . . by which a superior court . . . may prevent [an] inferior court or tribunal from exceeding jurisdiction or usurping jurisdiction over matters not within its jurisdiction.” English v. McCrary, 348 So. 2d 293, 296 (Fla. 1977). When the trial court entered the order at issue here, Petitioners had another petition for writ of prohibition pending in the same underlying case, and this Court had already issued an order to show cause. See Case No. 1D19-2821. Relief is warranted here because issuance of the show cause order in the other case had the effect of staying further proceedings in the trial court. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.100(h) (“In prohibition proceedings, the issuance of an order directing the respondent to show cause shall stay further proceedings in the lower tribunal.”); Inphynet Contracting Servs., Inc. v. Soria, 37 So. 3d 299, 301 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (“[O]ur issuance of an order to show cause in case number 4D09-5170, involving the same underlying case, had the effect of staying proceedings in the circuit court. The circuit court lacked jurisdiction to rule on the motion while proceedings were stayed.”) (citation omitted). We therefore GRANT the petition for writ of prohibition and QUASH the order. ROWE, OSTERHAUS, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur. _____________________________
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Carey English v. McCRARY, 348 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 1977)
- Inphynet Contracting Servs., Inc. v. David M. Soria, M.D., 37 So. 3d 299 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)