STATE EX REL. D. L. MCKINNON, RELATOR,
v.
J. E. WOLFE, CIRCUIT JUDGE, RESPONDENT
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 quashed an alternative writ of mandamus, holding that mandamus is not an appropriate remedy when a party has an adequate remedy by writ of error and when substantial third-party interests are involved.
No, mandamus is not the proper remedy. The court held that mandamus will not be awarded to correct alleged errors in rendering a judgment where there is an adequate remedy by writ of error, nor when substantial interests of third parties not before the court are involved.
“Where it appears that substantial interests of third parties not before the court are involved, mandamus will not be awarded.”
Reasoning for quashing the writ of mandamus.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAn alternative writ of mandamus was issued against a Circuit Judge, ordering him to show cause why he did not enter a different judgment in a civil ac…
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.
An alternative writ of mandamus was issued in this cause requiring the Circuit Judge to show cause why he does not enter a judgment in a civil action different from the judgment actually entered.
A motion is made to quash the alternative writ upon the ground that the judgment defendant is not a party to this proceeding. Where it appears that substantial interests of third parties not before the court are involved, mandamus will not be awarded. See State ex rel. v. Trustees I. I. Fund, 20 Fla. 402; State ex rel. Sunday v. Richards, 50 Fla. 284, 39 South. Rep. 152.
Mandamus lies to compel a court to exercise its lawful jurisdiction when it refuses to do so; but mandamus will not be awarded to correct alleged errors in rendering a judgment where there is an adequate remedy by writ of error. See State ex rel. Matheson v. King, 32 Fla. 416, 13 South. Rep. 891; State ex rel. Hart v. Call, 41 Fla. 442, 26 South. Rep. 1014.
Upon consideration it appears to the court that the party against whom the judgment is asked is not before this court, and that an appropriate remedy may be afforded all parties by writ of error to the judgment complained of, therefore mandamus should not be awarded.
An order will be entered dismissing the alternative writ of mandamus issued herein.
All concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
State v. Burr, 79 Fla. 290 (Fla. 1920)…0 South. Rep. 118; State ex rel. Colcord v. [*318] Young, 31 Fla. 594, 12 South. Rep. 673; State ex rel. Sanchez v. Call, 36 Fla. 305, 18 South. Rep. 771; State ex rel. Duke v. Wills, 49 Fla. 380, 38 South. Rep. 289; State ex rel. McKinnon v. Wolfe, 58 Fla. 523, 50 South. Rep. 511; State ex rel. Carter v. Sheats, 73 Fla. 176, 544, 74 South. Rep. 638, 641. See also 4 A. L. R. 582. The Railroad Commissioners .are administrative officers having statutory powers and' duties; and when they decline to exercise…
-
State v. Carey, 121 Fla. 515 (Fla. 1935)…urt has reiterated its position, declining to grant writ of mandamus where the substantial interests of third parties, not before the court as parties in the proceedings, were involved. See State v. Richards, 50 Fla. 284, 39 So. 152; State v. Wolfe, 58 Fla. 523, 50 So. 511. In the case of State of Florida, ex rel, v. Richards, supra, we held as follows: “Writ of Mandamus will not be awarded when it is evident that substantial rights of parties not before the court are involved.” “Mandamus will not as a…
-
State v. R. A, 157 Fla. 229 (Fla. 1946)…ts of third persons not before the court are involved, such course will never be pursued unless it appear by the pleadings that the interests of such persons are real and substantial, not unreal and [*233] imaginary. State ex rel. McKinnon v. Wolfe, 58 Fla. 523, 50 So. 511; Bigham v. State ex rel. Ocala Brick & Tile Co., 115 Fla. 852, 156 So. 246; State ex rel. Harrington v. City of Pompano, 136 Fla. 730, 188 So. 610. As previously stated, the alternative writ alleges that the said Henry M. Jones has not p…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Richards, 50 Fla. 284 (Fla. 1905)
- State v. The Trs. of the Internal Improvement Fund, 20 Fla. 402 (Fla. 1884)
- The State of Fla. ex rel. J. D. Matheson & Co. v. King, 32 Fla. 416 (Fla. 1893)
- The State of Fla. ex rel. S. H. Hart v. Call, 41 Fla. 442 (Fla. 1899)