LAWRENCE V. HASTINGS, PETITIONER,
v.
LOUISE Z. OSIUS, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court held that a district court of appeal lacked jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari to review a final judgment that was directly appealable as a matter of right. The Court vacated the district court's decision granting certiorari and directed dismissal of the petition.
The Court held that certiorari is not available to review a judgment which may be reviewed by direct appeal. Because the trial court judgment was final and appealable as a matter of right, certiorari was not the proper remedy, and the district court lacked jurisdiction to grant the certiorari petition.
“Our jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari to review decisions of the District Courts of Appeal, as stated in Ansin v. Thurston, supra, is confined to 'cases involving principles the settlement of which is of importance to the public, as distinguished from that of the parties, and in cases where there is a real and embarrassing conflict of opinion and authority' between decisions.”
Establishes the limited scope of the Supreme Court's certiorari jurisdiction
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAn attorney obtained a judgment in a trial court for $2,000 in compensation for legal services rendered in connection with a personal injury suit. 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 Conflict Of Decisions cases and more on FLexlaw
The facts in and background of this litigation appear in the decision of the District Court of Appeal for the third district of Florida, 97 So.2d 623.
After rehearing had been denied by the District Court, petition for certiorari was filed in this Court under the provisions of Article V, Section 4(b) of the Florida Constitution, F.S.A., claiming that such decision of the District Court was in direct conflict with the decision of this Court in Slatcoff v. Dezen, Fla.1954, 72 So.2d 800, and similar cases holding that certiorari would not lie to review an order or judgment which was reviewable on direct appeal. We granted certiorari on March 5, 1958, 101 So.2d 37, and limited the argument to the sole question of whether or not these decisions are in conflict. Cf. Ansin v. Thurston, Fla.1958, 101 So.2d 808, 811.
We are not here concerned with nor are we authorized under the Constitution, as amended, to pass upon the merits of the decision under review. Our jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari to review decisions of the District Courts of Appeal, as stated in Ansin v. Thurston, supra, is confined to “cases involving principles the settlement of which is of importance to the public, as distinguished from that of the parties, and in cases where there is a real and embarrassing conflict of opinion and authority” between decisions.
Article V, Section 5(c) provides that:
“Appeals from trial courts in each appellate district, * * * may be taken to the court of appeal of such district, as a matter of right, from all final judgments or decrees except those from which appeals may be taken direct to the supreme court or to a circuit court.”
In Slatcoff v. Dezen, supra; Burdine’s, Inc., v. Drennon, Fla.1957, 97 So.2d 259, and in many other cases we have held that certio-rari is not available to review a judgment which may be reviewed by appeal. Cf. Huie v. Lewis, Fla.1954, 71 So.2d 498, 499. This proposition seems to be conceded by the respondent but he argues that the judgment reviewed by the District Court was not a final judgment and, therefore, could not be reviewed by direct appeal. We cannot agree.
The decision of the District Court clearly discloses that the questioned judgment arose out of proceedings collateral to the main suit for personal injuries. The trial court determined that the attorney was entitled to recover $2,000 for his services and entered a judgment for such amount containing the customary provision “for which let execution issue”. So far as the question determined was concerned, the judicial labors were thereby terminated. The judgment was a final one from which an appeal could have been taken within the statutory period. Orange Belt Packing Co. v. International Agricultural Corp., 112 Fla. 99, 150 So. 264; Slatcoff v. Dezen, supra; Burdine’s, Inc., v. Drennon, supra; and Saffran v. Adler, 152 Fla. 405, 12 So.2d 124. Cf. Huie v. Lewis, supra.
*23The decision of the District Court of Appeal granting certiorari and quashing the order of the trial court is in direct conflict with the decisions of this Court heretofore discussed and is therefore vacated and set aside with directions to said court to enter an order dismissing the petition for cer-tiorari upon which said opinion is predicated.
It is so ordered.
TERRELL, C. J., and HOBSON, THORNAL and O’CONNELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (18 total)
-
Rosenberg v. Levin, 409 So. 2d 1016 (Fla. 1982)…t to discharge his attorney at any time with or without cause. The Third District Court of Appeal later applied this contract rule to a contingent fee contract situation in Osius v. Hastings, 97 So. 2d 623 (Fla. 3d DCA 1957), rev’d on other grounds, 104 So. 2d 21 (Fla.1958). In Milton Kelner, P.A. v. 610 Lincoln Road, Inc., 328 So. 2d 193 (Fla.1976), we approved the enforcement of a specific attorney-client contract, but left open the issue of whether quantum meruit was the proper rule in a contingency fee…
-
Hinkley v. Gould, 971 So. 2d 955 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)…osts. REVERSED. PALMER, C.J., and LAWSON, J., concur. . This court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction the appeal of the order granting interpleader, but has jurisdiction to review the final order awarding an attorney’s fee. See Hastings v. Osius, 104 So. 2d 21, 22 (Fla.1958).…
-
Levin v. Rosenberg, 372 So. 2d 956 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…e was no justifi [*958] cation for the discharge and, therefore, the client was liable for fees. Goodkind v. Wolkowsky, 132 Fla. 63, 180 So. 538 (1938); Osius v. Hastings, 97 So. 2d 623 (Fla. 3d DCA 1957), vacated on other grounds Hastings v. Osius, 104 So. 2d 21 (Fla.1958); Rosenkrantz v. Hall, 161 So. 2d 673 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964). The trial court then [notwithstanding the fact that after the attorneys were discharged the client settled the matter for a total recovery to him of $500,-000.00] awarded a total re…
Previewing 3 of 18 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ansin v. Thurston, 101 So. 2d 808 (Fla. 1958)
- Orange Belt Packing Co. v. Int'l Agric. Corp., 112 Fla. 99 (Fla. 1933)
- Nelly Saffran v. Adler, 152 Fla. 405 (Fla. 1943)
- Slatcoff v. Dezen, 72 So. 2d 800 (Fla. 1954)
- Lawrence v. Hastings, 101 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 1958)
- Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Barrett, 101 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 1958)
- Servet Zeko v. Gertrude Gleason, 97 So. 2d 623 (Fla. 3d DCA 1957)
- Osius v. Hastings, 97 So. 2d 623 (Fla. 3d DCA 1957)
- Huie v. Lewis, 71 So. 2d 498 (Fla. 1954)
- Burdine's, Inc. v. Drennon, 97 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 1957)