TRUMAN H. NEWBERRY, ET AL.,
v.
W. B. HARRIS, ET AL., AS BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF PINELLAS COUNTY, ET AL., AND DAVID SHOLTZ, ET AL., AS STATE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court declined to exercise original jurisdiction over a mandamus petition challenging decisions by Pinellas County commissioners and the State Board of Administration regarding public securities. The Court found no novel question of law or significant public interest warranting original jurisdiction when the matter could be adequately resolved in the Circuit Court.
The Supreme Court declined to exercise original jurisdiction because the case presented no novel or new legal question and involved no grave question of general law that would necessitate early Supreme Court decision to avoid unnecessary litigation in similar cases. The Court found the matter could be justly adjudicated in the Circuit Court of Pinellas County without prejudice to the relators' rights.
“the power vested in the Supreme Court to assume and exercise original jurisdiction in mandamus cases, * * * has been habitually exercised by the Supreme Court only in those cases where it appeared that there was involved some grave question of general law, possibly controlling in other cases of like character, and thereby necessitating an early decision in the interest of avoiding unnecessary litigation.”
Statement of the governing standard for when the Supreme Court will assume original jurisdiction in mandamus cases
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRelators (Newberry, et al.) sought to compel officials of Pinellas County and the State Board of Administration to take certain actions through a mand…
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 Mandamus Proceeding cases and more on FLexlaw
— In this case the Supreme Court declines to take original jurisdiction of the controversy sought to be adjudicated by a proceeding in mandamus against the officials of Pinellas County and the State Board of Administration, because it has not been made to appear that there is any new or novel question herein sought to be raised or presented, nor does it appear that there is any such question of public interest necessarily involved, as will warrant this Court in assuming original jurisdiction with respect to a matter which it appears' to us can be just as well adjudicated in the Circuit Court of Pinellas County without undue' prejudice to the rights of the relators.
The principles upon which the Supreme Court acts in assuming original jurisdiction in mandamus cases involving the enforcement of public securities were stated in Humphreys v. State, ex rel. Palm Beach Co., 108 Fla. 92, 145 Sou. Rep. 858, as follows (145 Sou. Rep., text p. 865) :
“* * * the power vested in the Supreme Court to assume *380and exercise original jurisdiction in mandamus cases, * * * has been habitually exercised' by the Supreme Court only in those cases where it appeared that there was involved some grave question of general law, possibly controlling in other cases of like character, and thereby necessitating an early decision in the interest of avoiding unnecessary litigation.”
There is nothing before us in the present case to show that this case involves any, special or peculiar question of law, an early decision of which will avoid unnecessary litigation in other cases which would be controlled by force of the decision in this case, therefore the' alternative writ is denied, but without prejudice to leave to withdraw the petition filed here in order that it may be filed in the Circuit Court.
Alternative writ denied without prejudice to apply to Circuit Court.
Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. State Bd. of Admin., 115 Fla. 753 (Fla. 1934)…umphreys v. State, ex rel. Palm Beach Co., 108 Fla. 92, 145 Sou. Rep. 858, this Court recognized the distinction between a writ of mandamus whose purpose was wholly private, and one bound up with a question of public interest. In Newberry v. Harris, 114 Fla. 379, 153 Sou. [*760] Rep. 807, opinion filed April 2, 1934, we denied the issuance in this Court of an alternative writ because the interest of relator was wholly private because the only public question involved had been recently decided by this Court…
-
State ex rel. Ayres v. Gray, 69 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 1953)…other agency authorized to represent the public generally is named as respondent.” Exercise of jurisdiction in the instant case clearly would not violate the rule as the Secretary of State is the principal party. In the case of Newberry v. Harris, 114 Fla. 379, 153 So. 901, the Court declined original jurisdiction because it was not apparent that “any new or novel question [was] raised or presented” or any “grave question of general law * * *.” Plere the problem is obviously new and novel and one of immen…
-
State ex rel. W. v. Gray, 74 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 1954)…nt must have a more limited application to this than to ordinary fields of law. See Everitt v. Board of County Com’rs Hughes County, 1 S.D. 365, 47 N.W. 296. Thus extraordinary original writs are reserved for extraordinary cases, Newberry v. Harris, 114 Fla. 379, 153 So. 901, but cases they must be. Expediency is no safe or available guide. For sheer want of power, the processes of this court cannot be extended to the solution of abstract legal problems, [*121] no matter how perplexing they are or how desir…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Humphreys v. State, 108 Fla. 92 (Fla. 1933)