CURTIS RUSSOM, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, 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 Court held that the petition for writ of certiorari must be dismissed due to the petitioner's failure to comply with statutory and court rule requirements regarding timely filing and notice.
The State moved to dismiss a petition for writ of certiorari, citing the petitioner's failure to comply with rules regarding notice and timely filing.…
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 Rules Of Appellate Procedure cases and more on FLexlaw
The State has moved to dismiss this petition for writ of certiorari because of the failure of the petitioner to comply with certain provisions of the statutes and rules of this Court in connection with the review of decisions of the district court by certiorari.
The following relevant dates are important to an understanding of the issues presented and the reasons why the State’s motion to dismiss must be granted:
Opinion and judgment of District Court, filed September 16, 1958;
Petition for rehearing of District Court’s opinion and judgment, filed September 26, 1958;
Order denying petition for rehearing, filed October 17, 1958;
Petition for writ of certiorari filed in this Court December 19, 1958.
Attached to the State’s 'motion to dismiss is a certificate of the clerk of the district court that neither the appellant nor his counsel filed a notice of intention to apply to the Supreme Court of Florida for a writ of certiorari.
Under the statutes of this State and the rules of this Court1 applications *32for writ of certiorari must be filed in this Court within sixty days from the rendition of the decision, order, judgment or decree sought to be reviewed. Such requirement is jurisdictional.2 A decision of the district court is deemed to have been “rendered”, in the event of the filing of a timely and proper petition for rehearing, as of the date said petition is disposed of.3 Assuming that the petition for rehearing was “timely and proper” under the rule, more than sixty days elapsed between the date the petition was denied and the filing of the application for certiorari in this Court.
Failure of the Bar to observe the distinct requirements of the rules of this court prescribing the practice and procedure in the courts of this State4 and the failure of the courts to enforce them will inevitably lead to a breakdown in the orderly, efficient and speedy administration of justice.
This observation does not imply that every failure to comply with such rules should, ipso facto, result in a dismissal of an appeal or certiorari proceeding. It does mean, however, that flagrant or substantial failure to observe such requirements may, in the exercise of sound judicial discretion, justify such course. The burden of showing that a failure to observe the requirements was excusable is always upon the one who is making the assertion.
It is not inappropriate to recall that this Court many years ago observed:5
“ * * * scientific administration of justice can never be accomplished in disregard of rules of procedure which have for their purpose a clear and definite presentation of an issue of law or fact. 'Justice,’ as the term is understood and applied in the courts to the transaction of business among men, is governed by rules of conduct and legal procedure to which those who seek it must conform to the end that the elements of which it consists in the particular case may be clearly stated, * *
The motion to dismiss is granted and the petition is hereby
Dismissed.
TERRELL, C. J., and ROBERTS, THORNAL and O’CONNELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Shouse, 177 So. 2d 724 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)…1 (statements of accomplices not on trial); Bedami v. State, Fla.App.1959. 112 So. 2d 284 (statements taken by solicitor to determine whether or not information should be filed); Russom v. State, Fla.App.1958, 105 So. 2d 380 (cert. dismissed, 1959, 109 So. 2d 30) (pre-trial statements of prosecutrix and witnesses); Annot. 156 A.L.R. 345 (1945). . 18 U.S.C.A. (Supp.) § 3500. . Present Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure authorizes pre-trial inspection and copying of documents “obtained from…
-
Pressley v. Louie L. Wainwright, 367 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 1979)…(Fla.1969); Elliott v. Goodwill Industries, 220 So. 2d 902 (Fla.1969); Walsh v. Marsh, 220 So. 2d 897 (Fla.1969); Dave’s Auto Parts v. Westberry, 220 So. 2d 364, 365 (Fla. 1969); Overstreet v. Davis, 219 So. 2d 34, 34-35 (Fla.1969); Russom v. State, 109 So. 2d 30, 31-32 (Fla. 1959); Central Truck Lines, Inc. v. Boyd, 106 So. 2d 547, 549 (Fla.1958); Columbia Cas. Co. v. McFee, 81 So. 2d 631, 632 (Fla. 1955); Wieczorek v. Williams, 71 So. 2d 262 (Fla.1954); Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Mack, 64 So. 2d 304, 30…
-
Hayes v. State, 151 So. 2d 671 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)…apsed between date of denial of petition for rehearing and filing of application for certiorari, petition for certiorari will be dismissed. 31 F.S.A.Florida Appellate Rules, rule 4.S, subd. c(l) ; F.S.A. § 59.-08; also see Russom v. State, Fla.1959, 109 So. 2d 30. In the instant case, the appeal had already been taken, and the method resorted to here is for further review via petition for writ of certiorari. Motion to dismiss the petition for writ of certiorari interposed by the State must be and is granted…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Harrison Reed and Catherine Harriet Reed v. Mendel Cromer, 86 Fla. 390 (Fla. 1923)
- Sikes v. Dade Lumber Co., 98 Fla. 451 (Fla. 1929)
- Thompson v. Baker, 154 Fla. 303 (Fla. 1944)
- Palmer v. Gulf Fertilizer Co., 127 Fla. 61 (Fla. 1937)
- Sirman v. Conklin, 154 Fla. 304 (Fla. 1944)