SUN INSURANCE COMPANY ET AL., PETITIONERS,
v.
GEORGE L. BOYD AND FLORIDA INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION, 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 Florida Supreme Court held that it has jurisdiction to award attorney's fees under F.S. § 440.34 for services rendered in connection with a successful motion to deny a petition for writ of certiorari in a workers' compensation case, despite denying the underlying certiorari petition for lack of jurisdiction.
The Court held that it has jurisdiction to award attorney's fees for such services because a tribunal always has inherent jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction, and the services at issue were rendered in connection with a determination of that preliminary jurisdictional question, which the Court clearly had authority to decide.
“a tribunal always has jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction”
Establishes the foundational principle that courts possess inherent power to decide jurisdictional questions even when lacking jurisdiction over the underlying matter.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSun Insurance Company filed a petition for writ of certiorari to review a District Court of Appeal decision denying certiorari in a workers' compensat…
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 To Determine Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
Petition for writ of certiorari was filed in this cause to review a decision of the District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District, 101 So.2d 419, denying cer-tiorari in the case of a workmen’s compensation award. This Court, on June 24, 1958, 104 So.2d 593, denied the petition for lack of jurisdiction under Article V, Sec. 4, of the Florida Constitution, F.S.A., and requested briefs on the question, presented for the first time by a motion in this cause, of awarding a claimant’s attorney’s fees for services in successfully resisting the application for the writ in such circumstances.
F.S. § 440.34, F.S.A., reads in part as follows:
“(j) * * * if any proceedings are had for review of any claim, award or compensation order before any court, the court may allow or increase the attorney’s fees, in its discretion, which fees shall be in addition to the compensation paid the claimant, and shall be paid as the court may direct.”
From a superficial consideration of the matter there may be said to exist some doubt that this Court could exercise jurisdiction in the cause even to allow fees unj der the statute, for services of claimant’s counsel in the proceeding here, in the face of its conclusion that certiorari must be denied under Article V, supra. The general principle that “Upon determining that it has no jurisdiction, the court * * * should, refuse to * * * determine other * * * rights of the parties” (21 C.J. S. Courts § 118) is fully answered by the elementary proposition that a tribunal always has jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction. State ex rel. B. F. Goodrich Co. v. Trammell, 140 Fla. 500, 192 So. 175. Obviously when this Court makes a determination that the conditions essential to its exercise of jurisdiction under the Constitution do or do not exist, it thereby exercises an inherent power or jurisdiction. And, by invoking the statute to obtain fees under such circumstances, counsel is not in fact contending for an award of fees for services rendered in a proceeding over which the Court has no jurisdiction — but rather for services in connection with obtaining a determination of the preliminary issue which the Court certainly had jurisdiction to decide. 14 Am.Jur. 368; Abelleira v. District Court, 17 Cal.2d 280, 109 P.2d 942, 132 A.L.R. 715; Texas & P. R. Co. v. Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co., 270 U.S. 266, 46 S.Ct. 263, 70 L.Ed. 578; Knox County Council v. State ex rel. Kirk, 217 Ind. 493, 29 N.E.2d 405, 130 A.L.R. 1427, 1437.
*576These proceedings were “had for review of * * * [the] compensation order” in this Court. So it is clear that the statute in express words authorizes this Court, in its discretion, to make a suitable award to the successful claimant’s attorney; but even if the statute were doubtful or ambiguous such doubt or ambiguity would have to be resolved in favor of the conclusion we reach to properly effectuate the plain purpose and intent of the Workmen’s Compensation Act.
Claimant’s counsel is allowed $250 for his services in these proceedings.
TERRELL, C. J., and HOBSON and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.
THOMAS, J., dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Fla. Birth-Related Neurological Injury Comp. Ass'n v. Florida Division OF Administrative Hearings, 948 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 2007)…n these provisions, we are led to conclude that an ALJ has jurisdiction to determine whether notice was given. As established law provides, an ALJ must have jurisdiction to determine whether the ALJ has jurisdiction. See, e.g., Sun Ins. Co. v. Boyd, 105 So. 2d 574, 575 (Fla.1958) (explaining that “a tribunal always has jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction”). Notably, in 2003, the Legislature amended the NICA statute to add section 766.309(4), Florida Statutes: If it is in the interest of judicial…
-
Wick Roofing Co. v. Glenn D. Curtis & the Fla. Indus. Comm'n, 110 So. 2d 385 (Fla. 1959)…iding for the disabled employee a full measure of protection guaranteed by the Workmen’s Compensation Law. This again has been the consistent policy of this court over the years. For example, only recently in Sun Insurance Company v. Boyd, Fla.1958, 105 So. 2d 574, we held that where a carrier had unsuccessfully sought certiorari in this court but was rejected because of our conclusion that we were without jurisdiction, nevertheless, the attorney for the employee was allowed a fee for services here on the the…
-
Congregation Temple de Hirsch v. Susan Joyce Aronson (Individually), 128 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 1961)…veland Electric Co., Inc., Fla.1952, 58 So. 2d 153. This rule is so well established that Justice Hobson has referred to it as being “aportictic.” Kent v. Marvin, Fla.1952, 59 So. 2d 791, at page 792. Compare Sun Insurance Company v. Boyd, Fla.1958, 105 So. 2d 574. . Salinger v. Salinger, Fla.1958, 100 So. 2d 393, 394. . Cortina v. Cortina, Fla.1957, 98 So. 2d 334. . 2 Fla.Jur. Appeals § 297 (1955). Cottages, Miami Beach, Inc. v. Wegman, Fla.1951, 57 So. 2d 439; In re Freeman’s Petition, Fla.1955, 84 So. 2…
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
- Tex. & Pac. Ry. Co. v. Gulf, 270 U.S. 266 (U.S. 1926)
- State ex rel. The B. F. Goodrich Co. v. Worth W. Trammell, 140 Fla. 500 (Fla. 1939)
- SUN Ins. Co. v. Boyd, 101 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958)
- Bozeman v. State, 104 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 1958)
- Krebs v. Boyer, 104 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 1958)