PETER BLUESTEN, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION AND JOSEPH CONDERMAN, APPELLEES

Fla. | 1960-11-23
THOMAS, C. J., and TERRELL, HOB-SON and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.
125 So. 2d 567 Florida Supreme Court (1960) Positive Treatment
Cited by 16 cases

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.

Synopsis

The Florida Supreme Court dismissed an appeal from a District Court of Appeal decision denying a real estate broker's certiorari petition to review his license revocation by the Florida Real Estate Commission. The Court held that it lacks jurisdiction to review District Court certiorari decisions unless they involve constitutional or statutory validity issues.


Holding

The Florida Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to review District Court of Appeal decisions in certiorari proceedings to the Real Estate Commission unless those decisions initially pass upon the validity of a statute or initially construe a controlling constitutional provision. The appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.


Key Quotes

“decisions of the District Courts of Appeal in certiorari proceedings to review orders of the Florida Real Estate Commission are reviewable on appeal to this Court only in those instances where such decisions initially pass upon the validity of a state statute or a federal statute or treaty or initially construe a controlling provision of the Florida or federal constitution”

Establishes the jurisdictional limitation for Supreme Court review of Real Estate Commission certiorari cases

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Peter Bluesten's registration as a real estate broker was revoked by the Florida Real Estate Commission. Bluesten sought review by certiorari in the D…

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.


Opinion of the Court
DREW, Justice.

DREW, Justice.

The registration of appellant, Peter BKie-sten, as a registered real estate broker was revoked by appellee Florida Real Estate Commission. From this final judgment the appellant sought review by certiorari to the District Court of Appeal, Third District. The District Court disposed of the matter by an order denying the petition because the petitioner had failed to show that any essential requirements of the law had been violated.

This cause is now before this Court on an appeal taken from the last mentioned order of the District Court under the authority of Section 475.36, Florida Statutes, F.S.A. which purports to authorize appellate review in this Court of judgments of the District Courts in certiorari proceedings to the Florida Real Estate Commission.

The Constitution of this State authorizes the Legislature to vest in the District Courts of Appeal power of direct *568review of administrative actions.1 In 1959, pursuant to this provision of the Constitution, the Legislature provided that final orders and rulings of the Florida Real Estate Commission should be reviewable only by writ of certiorari issued by the District Courts of Appeal of the appropriate appellate district.2 This legislative act prescribes in great detail the procedure to be followed in seeking such review and purports to limit and circumscribe the powers of the District Court with respect thereto. We interpolate at this point to observe that the validity of these provisions insofar as they purport .to prescribe or limit the powers of the District Court with respect to such review, is not pertinent to the disposition of this cause and is not in any way involved in the immediate question under consideration. While the Legislature may prescribe the method of conducting hearings and the pre-cedure to be followed in the administrative agencies of this State, the sole power to prescribe rules for the practice and procedure in the courts is vested by the Constitution in this Court.3

Our immediate concern is the power of this Court to entertain this appeal. Section 475.36, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., while ambiguous in many of its provisions, purportedly authorizes any party who is dissatisfied with the judgment on certiorari of the District Court to the Real Estate Commission to seek appropriate appellate review by the Supreme Court. Such provision must be construed with Section 4(2) of Article V of the Constitution which defines the jurisdiction of this Court. That section, insofar as review of judgments of the District Courts of Appeal is concerned, limits our jurisdiction on appeals to “decisions initially passing upon the validity of a state statute or a federal statute or treaty, or initially construing a controlling provision of the Florida or federal constitution.” We, therefore, hold that decisions of the District Courts of Appeal in cer-tiorari proceedings to review orders of the Florida Real Estate Commission are reviewable on appeal to this Court only in those instances where such decisions initially pass upon the validity of a state statute or a federal statute or treaty or initially construe a controlling provision of the Florida or federal constitution. The judgment of the District Court not falling within this category, we have no jurisdiction to entertain, it. Accordingly, the appeal in this cause be and the same is hereby dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

THOMAS, C. J., and TERRELL, HOB-SON and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Cummins Ala., Inc. v. Allbritten, 548 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)
    …e relevant statutory provisions but the rules promulgated by the supreme court as well. The Supreme Court of Florida has the exclusive power to prescribe rules for the practice and procedure in Florida courts. Bluesten v. Florida Real Estate Comm’n, 125 So. 2d 567 (Fla.1960). Necessarily included is the power to designate legal holidays for state courts. Of course, both the court rules and the statutory provisions relating to legal holidays should be harmonized to the maximum extent possible, but any conflict…
  • …(Fla. 1976) (“while procedure within administrative agencies is subject to statutory regulation, procedure in all Florida courts is governed by such rules of procedure as have been adopted by this Court”); Bluesten v. Florida Real Estate Commission, 125 So. 2d 567 (Fla.1960) (“while the legislature may prescribe the method of conducting hearings and the procedure to be followed in the administrative agencies of this state, the sole power to prescribe rules for the practice and procedure in the courts is veste…
  • Condermann v. Potter, 126 So. 2d 743 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)
    …la.1958, 99 So. 2d 849), that court reversed the commission’s order, concluding that the charges had not been proved by a preponderance of the evidence. The commission appealed to this court. See Bluesten v. Florida Real Estate Commission, Fla.1960, 125 So. 2d 567.1 In contending for reversal the appellant argues that the circuit court should have observed the rule that decisions of administrative boards made in exercise of quasi-judicial powers are entitled to be upheld where based on competent substantial…

Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw