STATE EX REL. GEORGE L. TIPPINS, ET AL.,
v.
M. G. ROWE, ET AL.
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.
This prohibition proceeding was dismissed as moot because the underlying appeals that prompted the action had already been decided. The court's mandate from those decisions would control future proceedings, rendering the prohibition issue irrelevant.
Yes, the issue is moot because the appeals have been decided, and the mandate from those decisions will govern future proceedings.
“The appeals in connection with which the rule nisi was issued, have now been decided, so any further consideration of the question whether a permanent writ of prohibition should issue therein has now become immaterial, inasmuch as the mandate we will issue on the decisions on the appeal involved will control all future proceedings' by the respondents in this cause, the Circuit Judge and his receiver.”
This quote explains why the prohibition proceeding is now moot.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRelators sought a writ of prohibition against a Circuit Judge and Receiver to stop them from exercising jurisdiction under certain orders. These order…
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 Prohibition cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an original proceeding in prohibition wherein a rule nisi was issued against the Circuit Judge of the Seventh Judicial Circuit and William Cobb, as Receiver of the Circuit Court, to prohibit the respondents from exercising further jurisdiction and powers under certain orders .alleged in the petition to have been duly superseded by appeals taken to this Court in an equity case wherein Belle Mead Development Corporation was complainant, and Florida East Coast Bulb Farms, Inc., George L. Tippins, et al., were defendants.
The appeals in connection with which the rule nisi was issued, have now been decided, so any further consideration of the question whether a permanent writ of prohibition should issue therein has now become immaterial, inasmuch as the mandate we will issue on the decisions on the appeal involved will control all future proceedings' by the respondents in this cause, the Circuit Judge and his receiver.
This proceeding is therefore dismissed at costs of relator.
Whitfield, Ellis, Terrell, Brown and Buford, J. J., •concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tippins v. Belle Mead Dev. Corp., 136 Fla. 373 (Fla. 1935)…ppellant and his attorney filed a petition in this Court for a writ of prohibition relative to the said contempt proceedings, which prohibition proceedings were dismissed by this Court State, ex rel. George L. Tippins, et al., v. M. G. Rowe, et al., 112 Fla. 380, 150 Sou. 591. On August 10, 1934, a decree was entered by the Circuit Court diolding, in substance, that the petition for contempt was well founded and ordering the rule to be discharged upon the payment of $34.59: by the respondents to-the rule […