DIAMOND BERK INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., PETITIONER,
v.
SAM A. GOLDSTEIN 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.
The Petitioner sought review of a District Court of Appeal's order denying its motion to dismiss an appeal. The Supreme Court determined that it lacked jurisdiction to review the order directly but could issue a writ of prohibition.
The Supreme Court determined it was not necessary to decide whether it had jurisdiction to review the order directly. However, it indicated that the appropriate remedy for the Petitioner would be to seek a writ of prohibition from the Supreme Court.
“Petitioner seeks to review an order of the District Court of Appeal denying its motion to dismiss, because of lack of jurisdiction, the appeal of respondents from an adverse judgment in the trial court.”
This quote establishes the procedural posture and the core issue of the case.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe respondents, who lost in the trial court, filed their notice of appeal directly with the District Court of Appeal instead of the trial court. The …
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 Filing Requirements cases and more on FLexlaw
Petitioner seeks to review an order of the District Court of Appeal denying its motion to dismiss, because of lack of jurisdiction, the appeal of respondents from an adverse judgment in the trial court.
Whether this Court has the power under amended Article V of the Constitution, F. S.A., to decide the correctness or propriety of an order of this nature under the limited authority granted in the aforesaid Article, § 4, authorizing us to “ * * * review by certiorari any decision of a district court of appeal that [1] affects a class of consti*421tutional or state officers, or [2] that passes upon a question certified by the district court of appeal to be of great public interest, or [3] that is in direct conflict with a decision of another district court of appeal or of the supreme court on the same point of law. * * * ” (Emphasis supplied.) is, for reasons hereafter pointed out, not necessary to the disposition of this cause, and therefore is not decided. It is not inappropriate to observe, however, that under the constitutional plan the powers of this Court to review decisions of the district courts of appeal are limited and proscribed.
Turning now to the problem at hand, the unsuccessful litigants in the trial court filed their notice of appeal in the district court instead of in the trial court. This, adversaries argue, does not give the district court of appeal jurisdiction of the cause (Counne v. Saffan, Fla., 87 So.2d 586) and therefore the district court, in refusing to dismiss the appeal, rendered a "decision * * * in direct conflict (emphasis supplied) with the above case. This is not primarily a matter of conflict in decisions justifying review by this court under paragraph 3, supra, but brings into play the provisions of Article V empowering this Court to “issue writs of prohibition * * * to the district courts of appeal. * * * ”
Certiorari denied without prejudice to apply for prohibition to this Court.
Certiorari denied.
TERRELL, C. J., and THOMAS, HOB-SON and THORNAL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Ansin v. Thurston, 101 So. 2d 808 (Fla. 1958)…(6) supra. We have heretofore pointed out that under the constitutional plan the powers of this Court to review decisions of the district courts of appeal are limited and strictly prescribed. Diamond Berk Insurance Agency, Inc., v. Goldstein, Fla., 100 So. 2d 420; Sinnamon v. Fowlkes, Fla., 101 So. 2d 375. It was never intended that the district courts of appeal should be intermediate courts. The revision and modernization of the Florida judicial system at the appellate level was prompted by the great volume…
-
Jenkins v. State, 385 So. 2d 1356 (Fla. 1980)…Court said: We have heretofore pointed out that under the constitutional plan the powers of this Court to review decisions of the district courts of appeal are limited and strictly prescribed. Diamond Berk Insurance Agency, Inc. v. Goldstein, Fla., 100 So. 2d 420; Sinnamon v. Fowlkes, Fla., 101 So. 2d 375. It was never intended that the district courts of appeal should be intermediate courts. The revision and modernization of the Florida judicial system at the appellate level was prompted by the great volume…
-
State of Fla. ex rel. Eugene W. Owens v. Honorable Tillman Pearson, 156 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 1963)…reaty, or initially construing a controlling provision of the Florida or federal constitution.” . State ex rel. Diamond Berk Insurance Agency, Inc. v. Carroll et al., Fla., 102 So. 2d 129. . Diamond Berk Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Goldstein, Inc., Fla., 100 So. 2d 420. . Note 4 supra. . Note 2 supra. . Fla., 100 So. 2d 373. . Rule 3.16, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, 31 F.S.A. . Note 1, supra. . Fla., 81 So. 2d 591. . 59.08, F.S.A. Rule 3.2, F.A.R.1962 Revision. Cf. In re Wartman’s Estate, Fla., 1961, 1…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Counne v. Saffan, 87 So. 2d 586 (Fla. 1956)