GREGORY SANTMYER, PETITIONER,
v.
ORANGE PAVING AND CONSTRUCTION CO., ET AL., RESPONDENTS
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.
Petition for writ of certiorari to review dismissal for failure to comply with Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.070(j) is dismissed because appeal is the adequate remedy and certiorari is not appropriate where an adequate appellate remedy exists.
Certiorari is not an appropriate remedy to review a dismissal order when an adequate remedy exists by way of appeal.
[1] Certiorari is not an appropriate remedy to review a dismissal order when an adequate remedy by appeal exists.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioner filed both a petition for writ of certiorari and a notice of appeal to challenge dismissal of his complaint for failure to comply with Flor…
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 On Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
W. SHARP, Judge.
Petitioner has filed a petition for writ of certiorari to review the dismissal of his complaint for failure to comply with Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.070(j). He has also filed a notice of appeal to review the same order of dismissal. Respondent moved to strike the petition because it is duplicative of the appeal. We treated the motion as one to dismiss and ordered petitioner to respond. Petitioner argues certiorari is a viable review route, although in this case it duplicates the appeal. We disagree.
Certiorari is not appropriate where an adequate remedy exists by way of appeal from the final judgment. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. C.G., 556 So. 2d 1243 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Carroll Contracting v. Edwards, 528 So. 2d 951 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); Industrial Tractor Company v. Bartlett, 454 So. 2d 1067 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). Case law interpreting rule 1.070(j) involves appeals; none involves certiorari review. See Partin v. Flagler Hospital, Inc., 581 So. 2d 240, 241 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) (appeal of an order dismissing plaintiff’s case without prejudice). See also Greco v. Pedersen, 583 So. 2d 783 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Hill v. Hammerman, 583 So. 2d 368 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Estate of Schafer v. Schafer, 582 So. 2d 121 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Morales v. Sperry Rand Corp., 578 So. 2d 1143 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Berdeaux v. Eagle-Picher hud., Inc., 575 So. 2d 1295 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991).
Accordingly, we dismiss this petition for certiorari on the sole ground that we lack jurisdiction, since the proper method of review is by an appeal.
DISMISSED.
DAUKSCH and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
DOE v. Young, 656 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)…ertiorari because there is no irreparable harm. Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So. 2d 1097 (Fla.1987) (ordinarily, orders on motions to strike or dismiss claims do not qualify for review by certiora-ri); Santmyer v. Orange Paving & Constr. Co., 589 So. 2d 472 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) (dismissal for failure to perfect service reviewable by appeal, not certiorari). But cf. NME Properties, Inc. v. McCullough, 590 So. 2d 439 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (writ of certiorari was proper method to test non-final order of trial…
Authorities Cited
- Indus. Tractor Co. v. Bartlett, 454 So. 2d 1067 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)
- Carroll Contracting, Inc. v. The Honorable William F. Edwards, 528 So. 2d 951 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)
- Berdeaux v. Eagle-Picher Indus., Inc., 575 So. 2d 1295 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
- Greco v. Kjell Pedersen, 583 So. 2d 783 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)
- Pylon Enters., Ltd. v. Greenwich Properties-I, Ltd., 578 So. 2d 1143 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)
- Morales v. Sperry Rand Corp., 578 So. 2d 1143 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)
- Della E. Partin and Thomas v. Partin, 581 So. 2d 240 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)
- Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. C.G., 556 So. 2d 1243 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)
- The Est. OF Jessica Schafer v. Schafer, 582 So. 2d 121 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)
- Hill v. Marc Z. Hammerman, M.D., 583 So. 2d 368 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)