R. A. WADDELL, PETITIONER,
v.
E. C. MCALLISTER, A FEME SOLE, 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.
Waddell sought a writ of certiorari to quash a Circuit Court judgment that had reversed a Civil Court of Record decision and remanded for a new trial in a damages action for loss of a boat. The Florida Supreme Court held that certiorari is inappropriate to review a non-final reversal and remand order in an ordinary civil action absent special circumstances.
A writ of certiorari may not be issued to quash the Circuit Court's reversal and remand judgment because: (1) certiorari in ordinary civil cases requires a final adjudication; (2) a judgment of reversal and remand is not a final judgment; (3) certiorari is limited to special and summary proceedings or exceptional circumstances; and (4) the ordinary civil damages action here presents neither.
“Certiorari is a common law writ which issues in the sound judicial discretion of the court to an inferior court, not to take the place of a writ of error or an appeal, but to cause the entire record of the inferior court to be brought up by certified copy for inspection, in order that the superior court may determine from the face of the record whether the inferior court has exceeded its jurisdiction, or has not proceeded according to the essential requirements of the law.”
Defines the proper scope and purpose of certiorari as a discretionary remedy distinct from direct appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe case involves an action for damages for the loss of a boat. The Civil Court of Record rendered a judgment, which the Circuit Court reviewed on wri…
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 Discretionary Writ cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, J.
On a writ of error from the Circuit Court to the Civil Court of Record for Dade County the Circuit Court reversed the judgment and ordered the cause be “remanded for a new trial.” An application is made for a writ of certiorari to have the record certified to this Court with a view to “quashing the judgment of the Circuit Court and affirming the judgment of the Civil Court of Record.
Certiorari is a common law writ which issues in the sound judicial discretion of the court to an inferior court, not to take the place of a writ of error or an appeal, but to cause the entire record of the inferior court to be brought up by certified copy for inspection, in order that the superior court may determine from the face of the record whether the inferior court has exceeded its jurisdiction, or has not proceeded according to the essential requirements of the law, in cases where no direct appellate proceedings are provided by law. Malone v. City of Quincy, 66 Fla. 52, 62 So. R. 922.
In this State the writ of certiorari is used to quash illegal judgments, not to assume and complete the adjudication of a cause. Ordinarily the writ of certiorari may not be used to quash a judgment of an inferior court unless such judgment is a final adjudication of the cause. 11 C. J. 126; 6 Cyc. 755. See also 3 C. J. 585. In all the cases in this State where the writ of certiorari has been used to quash a judgment of a lower court, they have been in cases where the judgment of a trial court has been affirmed by the Circuit Court in appellate proceedings, in which cases the Circuit Court had final appellate jurisdiction. First National Bank of Gainesville v. Gibbs et al., 78 Fla. 123, 82 So. R. 618; Holmberg et al. v. Toomer, 78 Fla. 116, 82 So. R. 620.
It seems that at common law a writ of certiorari could be awarded to review special and summary proceedings whether final or not where direct appellate proceedings are not available or not effectual to prevent a miscarriage of justice. See 11 C. J. 126; 4 Enc. Pl. & Pr. p. 41 et seq. The writ of certiorari may be issued in proper cases under exceptional circumstances in the discretion of the Court. See Spafford et al. v. Brevard County, Florida, 92 Fla. 617, 110 So. R. 451; Kroier v. Kroier, 95 Fla. 865, 116 So. R.
652. But the proceeding here sought to be quashed is not special or summary; and there are no special circumstances justifying the issue of a writ of certiorari. The action is for damages for the loss of a boat. In such a case certiorari may not be issued except after a final adjudication of the cause; and ordinarily a judgment of reversal for á new trial is not in terms or effect a final judgment. Haseltine v. Central Bank, 183 U. S. 130, 22 Sup. Ct. R. 49, 46 L. Ed. 117 and authorities cited. See Bruce v. Tobin, 245 U. S. 18, 38 Sup. Ct. R. 7, 62 L. Ed. 123; Chicago and N.
W. Ry. Co. v. Junod, 146 U. S. 354, 13 Sup. Ct. R. 281, 36 L. Ed. 1002; Hamilton v. Wolf, 240 U. S. 251, 258. In A.
C. L.
R. R. Co. v. Florida Fine Fruit Co., 93 Fla. 161, 112 So. R. 66, and Southern Utilities Co. v. Palatka, 268 U. S. 232, 45 Sup. Ct. R. 488, 69 L. Ed. 930 and other like cases certiorari was issued to the affirmance of a judgment or decree. Even if the opinion of the Circuit Judge be regarded as a part of the judg meat of the Circuit Court reversing the judgment of the Civil Court of Eecord and remanding cause for a new trial, neither the opinion nor the judgment in terms or in effect directs the final adjudication or disposition to be made of the cause, leaving nothing to be done by the Civil Court of Eecord except to enter a judgment, as in cases like Gulf Refining Co. v.
U. S., 269 U. S. 125, 46 Sup. Ct. R. 52, 70 L. Ed. 195; Moore v.
N. Y. Cotton Exchange, 270 U. S. 593, 603, 46 Sup. Ct. R. 367, 70 L. Ed. 750; Robert Moody and Son v. Century Savings Bank, 239 U. S. 374, 376, 36 Sup. Ct. R. 111, 60 L. Ed. 336; C. & P. Tel. Co. v. Manning, 186 U. S. 238, 22 Sup. Ct. R. 881, 46 L. Ed. 1144.
Certiorari denied.
Terrell, C. J. and Ellis, Strum, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ulsch v. Mountain City Mill Co., 103 Fla. 932 (Fla. 1931)…certiorari will lie to such an adjudication of the Circuit Court made in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction over inferior courts. Hartford Accident & Industrial Ins. Co. vs. Thomasville, 100 Fla. 738, 130 Sou. Rep. 7; Waddell v. McAllister, 97 Fla. 1054, 122 Sou. Rep. 578. The ultimate adjudication here is to quash the judgment or the writ of certiorari after it has been issued. Pick v. Adams, 98 Fla. 140, 123 Sou. Rep. 547. It is well established by the prior decisions of this Court that upon ce…
-
Bringley v. C. I. T. Corp., 119 Fla. 529 (Fla. 1935)…y irregular and violative of established principles of law which have resulted in prejudice and material harm to the petitioner. Numerous decisions of this Court were cited as authority for the rule announced. In the case of Waddell v. McAllister, 97 Fla. 1054, 122 South. Rep. 578, this Court through Mr. Justice, Whitfield said: “Ordinarily the writ of certiorari may not be used to quash a judgriient of an inferior court unless such judgment is a final adjudication of the cause.” On certiorari this Court…
-
Robinson v. City of Miami, 138 Fla. 696 (Fla. 1939)…it does not finally dispose of the cause, nor does' it direct the lower court what judgment shall be entered there disposing of the cause. In such cases certiorari does not lie to review the judgment of the Circuit Court. See Waddell v. McAllister, 97 Fla. 1054, 122 So. 578; Hartford Accident, etc., Co. v. City of Thomasville, etc., 100 Fla. 748, 130 So. 7; Jacksonville, etc. Ry. Co. v. Boy, 34 Fla. 389, 16 So. 290; Bringley v. C. I. T. Corporation 119 Fla. 529, 160 So. 680. In the latter case it was s'aid…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (14 total)
- Moore v. N.Y. Cotton Exch., 270 U.S. 593 (U.S. 1926)
- Hamilton-Brown Shoe Co. v. Wolf Bros. & Co., 240 U.S. 251 (U.S. 1916)
- Spafford v. Brevard Cnty., 92 Fla. 617 (Fla. 1926)
- Malone v. City of Quincy, 66 Fla. 52 (Fla. 1913)
- Kroier v. Kroier, 95 Fla. 865 (Fla. 1928)
- Gulf Ref. Co. of La. v. United States, 269 U.S. 125 (U.S. 1925)
- Haseltine v. Cent. Bank OF Springfield, 183 U.S. 130 (U.S. 1901)
- Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Fla. Fine Fruit Co., 93 Fla. 161 (Fla. 1927)
- Bruce v. Tobin, 245 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1917)
- S. Utils. Co. v. City of Palatka, 268 U.S. 232 (U.S. 1925)