STATE ROAD DEPARTMENT OF FLORIDA, AN AGENCY OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, ET AL., PETITIONERS,
v.
IRA NOBLES ET AL., DEFENDANTS
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 a certified question regarding a defendant's ability to withdraw funds deposited by the state in an eminent domain proceeding. The court declined to answer the question, citing precedent that established a procedure for such matters.
The Court declined to answer the certified question.
“A motion has been made to quash the following certified question because it fails to fall within the terms of Supreme Court Rule 27, 31 F.S.A.”
This quote introduces the procedural posture of the case and the reason for the court's consideration.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe State Road Department of Florida initiated an eminent domain proceeding and deposited the appraised value of the property into the court registry.…
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 Certified Question cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
A motion has been made to quash the following certified question because it fails to fall within the terms of Supreme Court Rule 27, 31 F.S.A. “Does Section 74.07, Florida Statutes, as amended Laws of 1955 [F.S.A.], authorize upon application the withdrawal by a defendant of the face amount of the appraisal paid into the registry of the court where the property has been taken under the provisions of Section 74.05, Florida Statutes [F.S.A.]?”
We decline to answer the question certified, for the reasons stated in the opinion of Mr. Justice Thornal prepared for the Court in Gordon v. Norris, Fla.1956, 90 So. 2d 914, 915. It was suggested to the Court upon the presentation of this matter that unless the Court accepted the certified question and answered it, there would be no way in which the question certified could be reviewed by an appellate court. The answer to this contention was suggested in Howard Johnson, Inc., of Florida v. State Road Department of Florida, Fla.1956, 90 So. 2d 306.
HOBSON, Acting Chief Justice, DREW, THORNAL and O’CONNELL, JJ., and WIGGINTON, District Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Howard Johnson, Inc. v. State Rd. Dep't OF Fla., 90 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 1956)
- Gordon v. Norris, 90 So. 2d 914 (Fla. 1956)