IN RE ESTATE OF GEORGE H. WARTMAN, JR. VIRGINIA WARTMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
MARGARET MASON WARTMAN, AS EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF GEORGE H. WARTMAN, JR., APPELLEE
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 accepted an appeal from the District Court of Appeal, Third District, regarding a certified question of great public interest involving jurisdiction of the District Courts of Appeal. The Court converted the appeal into a petition for certiorari and established briefing procedures for resolution of the case.
The Court ordered that the appeal be regarded as a petition for certiorari because the District Court had properly certified the case under the constitutional provision for review of questions of great public interest. The Court established briefing schedules and directed that the original record from the District Court be filed with the Supreme Court.
“because the decision involves an important new point of law relating to jurisdiction of the District Courts of Appeal”
The District Court's basis for certifying the case as involving a question of great public interest
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceVirginia Wartman appealed a decision of the District Court of Appeal of the Third District rendered on March 23, 1960. Prior to the filing of the noti…
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 Petition For Certiorari cases and more on FLexlaw
An appeal has been taken to this Court -to review the decision of the District Court of Appeal of the Third District of March 23, 1960, in the captioned cause. 118 So.2d 838. Prior to the date the notice of appeal was filed in this Court, the District Court filed in the cause its certificate that such “decision * * * ‘passes upon a question * * * of great public interest,’ because the decision involves an important new point of law relating to jurisdiction of the District Courts of Appeal.”1 A certified copy of such certificate has been filed here.
A motion has now been made by appellant that the appeal be regarded as a petition for certiorari and that an appropriate order be entered in accordance with Florida Appellate Rules.2 It is, therefore,
Ordered that, because said cause was certified to this Court in the manner provided by the Constitution, the appeal taken in said cause within sixty days from the rendition of said decision shall be considered as a petition for certiorari.3 It is further
Ordered that the original record in said cause in the District Court of Appeal, Third District, be filed forthwith in this Court by the Clerk of said District Court. It is further
Ordered that the attorneys for the petitioner, Virginia Wartman, shall file in this Court and serve a copy of her brief-on respondent or her attorneys on or before thirty days from the date this order is filed in the Clerk’s office. Respondent’s brief shall be filed and served within thirty days thereafter and petitioner shall have ten days after the service of respondent’s brief to *661reply thereto. When the record and all briefs have been filed, the Clerk of this Court shall note this case for argument on the calendar and advise the respective parties thereof.
THOMAS, C. J., and HOBSON, DREW, THORNAL and O’CONNELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Zirin v. Charles Pfizer & Co., Inc., 128 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 1961)…where this question has been discussed and which have been certified to us under this provision see Carraway v. Revell, Fla.1959, 116 So. 2d 16, Miami Beach First National Bank v. Edgerly, Fla.1960, 121 So. 2d 417, In re Estate of Wartman, Fla.1960, 121 So. 2d 660, and Sturgis v. Canal Insurance Co. of Greenville, S.C., Fla.1960, 122 So. 2d 313. .P. C. Lissenden Co., Inc. v. Board of County Commissioners of Palm Beach County, Fla.1959, 116 So. 2d 632, 636. . Ansin v. Thurston, Fla.1958, 101 So. 2d 808; Sout…
Authorities Cited
- Miller v. Miller, 112 So. 2d 832 (Fla. 1959)
- Susco CAR Rental Sys. OF Fla. v. Leonard, 112 So. 2d 832 (Fla. 1959)
- In re Est. of George H. Wartman v. Wartman, 118 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)