NATIONAL DAIRY PRODUCTS CORPORATION, DOING BUSINESS AS SEALTEST SOUTHERN DAIRIES DIVISION, PETITIONER,
v.
J. BRAILEY ODHAM, CHAIRMAN, WILMER W. BASSETT, JR., ROBERT CARTER, WILBUR J. CASEY, JACKSON LOGAN, ALEX G. SHAW, AND HOWARD WALTON, AS AND CONSTITUTING FLORIDA MILK COMMISSION, AND FLORIDA MILK COMMISSION, AN INSTRUMENTALITY OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
National Dairy Products Corporation petitioned for a writ of certiorari to review orders of the Florida Milk Commission. The court held that under the Codomo decision, such orders are reviewable only by petition for certiorari, and transferred the case to the Circuit Court of Leon County as the proper forum for initial review.
The court held that the Codomo decision superseded the statutory review procedure under F.S. § 501.09(5), making orders of the Florida Milk Commission reviewable only by petition for certiorari. The court determined that jurisdiction to review such orders is lodged in the circuit courts and this court, and as a matter of judicial administration, the Supreme Court will not ordinarily issue certiorari to review administrative board rulings when a court of inferior jurisdiction is empowered to do so.
“Under the Codomo case, supra, the appellate procedure provided for in F.S. § 501.09(5), F.S.A. has been superseded by the Florida Appellate Rules and the challenged orders are reviewable only by petition for certiorari as provided by the Rules.”
Establishes the controlling legal standard that Codomo superseded the statutory review procedure and requires certiorari review.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceNational Dairy Products Corporation sought review of Florida Milk Commission orders, initially filing a statutory appeal in the Circuit Court of Leon …
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 Jurisdiction Of Courts cases and more on FLexlaw
This is a petition for writ of certiorari seeking review of certain orders of the Florida Milk Commission. Petitioner alleged that it had originally sought a statutory review of these orders in the Circuit Court of Leon County pursuant to F.S. § 501.09(5), F.S.A. On January 24, 1958, however, this court filed its opinion in the case of Codomo v. Shaw, 99 So.2d 849, whereupon the Commission moved to dismiss the statutory appeal in the circuit court, in reliance upon the Codorno case. The disposition of the motion does not appear from the petition.
Under the Codomo case, supra, the appellate procedure provided for in F.S. § 501.09(5), F.S.A. has been superseded by the Florida Appellate Rules and the challenged orders are reviewable only by petition for certiorari as provided by the Rules. Also, as in the Codorno case, no powers have been provided by law which would authorize the district courts of appeal to review the orders complained of. Jurisdiction to review such orders is presently lodged only in this court and in the circuit courts. As a matter of judicial administration, this court will not ordinarily issue the writ of certiorari to review the rulings of an administrative board so long as a court of inferior jurisdiction is empowered to issue it. Accordingly, under Rule 2.1, subd. a(5) (d), Florida Appellate Rules, the petition for certiorari and other papers filed in this court will, at the expiration of five days from the filing of this opinion, be transferred to the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit, Leon County, Florida. The petition will thenceforth be treated as it had originally been filed in that court. Rule 2.1 subd. a(5) (d), supra; Codorno v. Shaw, supra, 99 So.2d 849.
Petitioner has filed in this court a motion for a thirty day extension of time to file the certified transcript required by Rule 4.5, subd. c (1), Florida Appellate Rules, and ten days after receipt of the transcript from the Commission to file its brief. The grounds for this motion are that counsel for the Commission has stated that he will need the additional time to prepare the transcript, and petitioner will need the transcript to complete its brief. Respondents do not oppose this motion, but request that our order allow them (respondents) thirty days after receipt of petitioner’s brief within which to file their (respondents’) brief. Since this court has jurisdiction of the cause and will continue to retain such jurisdiction until *396the transfer order becomes effective, and since time may be running short because of the uncertain procedural situation which has confronted the parties, the motion of petitioner for extension of time is granted. The “request” by respondents, insofar as it may be considered a motion for extension of time, is denied, without prejudice to respondents to present such motion to the circuit court as they may be advised.
No oral argument is desired or will be permitted by this court upon any of the matters considered and resolved herein.
An order will be prepard in accordance with this opinion.
TERRELL, C. J., and THOMAS, ROBERTS and DREW, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Univ. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n OF Coral Gables v. Lightbourn, 201 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967)…urisdiction of an appellate court has been improvidently invoked. Such transfers have been made by the courts of our state. Maryland Casualty Company v. Marshall, Fla.App.1958, 106 So. 2d 212; National Dairy Products Corporation v. Odham, Fla. 1958, 100 So. 2d 394; Codomo v. Shaw, Fla. 1958, 99 So. 2d 849. All circumstances considered the defendant’s petition for certiorari shall be transferred by separate order to the District Court of Appeal, Third District, after five days’ notice to the parties as provid…
-
The Alliance FOR Conservation OF Natural Res. IN Pinellas Cnty. v. Furen, 104 So. 2d 803 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958)…by the commission with reference to a license and “all rights of appeal from a decree in the circuit court, in chancery, shall exist and be preserved as in other cases”. In the recent case of National Dairy Products Corporation v. Odham, Fla.1958, 100 So. 2d 394, 395, the Supreme Court, in an opinion by Mr. Justice Hobson, said: “Under the Codomo case, supra (Codomo v. Shaw, Fla.1958, 99 So. 2d 849), the appellate procedure provided for in F.S. § 501.09(5), F.S.A. has been superseded by the Florida Appella…
-
Alliance FOR Conservation OF Natural Res. IN Pinellas Cnty. v. Furen, 110 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)…at statutes affording review of administrative action by appeal to the circuit court would, because of the new constitutional provisions, have to be read as-providing such review by certiorari. See also, National Dairy Products Corp. v. Odham, Fla., 100 So. 2d 394. A study of' these cases does not indicate that the Supreme Court specifically considered the question of what the scope of review would! be when certiorari was substituted for appeal, under the revised constitutional provisions, or for that matter…
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
- Codomo v. Shaw, 99 So. 2d 849 (Fla. 1958)