SUEZ COMPANY, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, PETITIONER,
v.
LILLA D. HODGINS, RESPONDENT; HALPIN, INC., AN OHIO CORPORATION AUTHORIZED TO DO BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER, V. LILLA D. HODGINS, RESPONDENT; ALTON A. REGISTER, D/B/A ALTON A. REGISTER & ASSOCIATES, PETITIONERS, V. LILLA HODGINS, 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.
Three defendants petitioned for certiorari review of a trial court's denial of their motions to dismiss for want of prosecution after the plaintiff failed to take action for one year. The appellate court denied certiorari, holding that the denial of a motion to dismiss for want of prosecution is an interlocutory order not properly subject to certiorari review absent exceptional circumstances.
Certiorari is not the appropriate remedy for reviewing the trial court's denial of the motion to dismiss for want of prosecution because the order does not fall within recognized exceptions to the rule against certiorari review of interlocutory orders, and there is no showing that denial will cause material injury throughout subsequent proceedings for which appellate remedy would be inadequate.
“certiorari is the proper remedy where the court below acts without or in excess of its jurisdiction or "where the interlocutory order does not conform to the essential requirements of law and may reasonably cause material injury throughout the subsequent proceedings for which the remedy by appeal will be inadequate."”
Establishes the established exceptions to the general rule that certiorari does not lie to review interlocutory orders.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff Lilla D. Hodgins filed a complaint on April 22, 1960. Defendants filed motions to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action within the …
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 Lack Of Prosecution cases and more on FLexlaw
The above-titled petitions for certiorari were presented to this court as one, and since the questions of law are equally applicable to all, this opinion and ruling shall be determinative of all such petitions.
The petitioners, defendants below, seek review of the order of the circuit court of Dade County which denied defendants’ motions to dismiss for plaintiff’s failure to take any affirmative action in the prosecution of the cause for one year.
The respondent, plaintiff below, filed her complaint on April 22, 1960. The defendants, within the time prescribed by the rules, filed their motions to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it failed to state a cause of action. The plaintiff took no further action after filing her complaint. *232Defendants allege that after one year had ■elapsed from the date of the filing of the complaint, they filed their motions to dismiss the cause for want of prosecution pursuant to § 45.19, Fla.Stat., F.S.A.
The court, after hearing argument of counsel for the respective parties, entered its order denying the defendants’ motions to dismiss the cause for want of prosecution.
The writ will not ordinarily issue to review interlocutory orders at law which are reviewable on appeal from the final judgment. However, there are some well-settled exceptions to the principle. It was held in Kaufman v. King, Fla.1956, 89 So. 2d 24, 26, that certiorari is the proper remedy where the court below acts without or in excess of its jurisdiction or “where the interlocutory order does not conform to the essential requirements of law and may reasonably cause material injury throughout the subsequent proceedings for which the remedy by appeal will be inadequate.” Ford Motors v. Havee, Fla.App.1960, 123 So.2d 572; White v. Spears, Fla.App.1960, 123 So.2d 689.
We are of the view that the order before us for review does not come within the foregoing exceptions. There is nothing in the record to show that the denial of the motion to dismiss for want of prosecution will cause material injury to the petitioners throughout subsequent proceedings of this cause for which remedy by appeal will be inadequate. United Life Ins. Co. v. Jowers, Fla.App.1960, 118 So.2d 85.
For the reason herein stated certiorari is denied and the petition is dismissed.
Writs denied.
On Petition for Rehearing of Case No. 61-445
Petitioner has by petition for rehearing called to our attention our own decision in Advance Tool and Dye, Inc. v. Superior Stampings, Inc., 130 So.2d 291. In that case we considered on petition for certio-rari an order reinstating a cause originally dismissed pursuant to § 45.19, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., for want of prosecution. The opinion in that case did not pass upon the propriety of petition for writ of certiorari as a means for review of an order denying a motion to dismiss under section 45.19, Fla. Stat., F.S.A. To the extent that the opinion in the present case may be in conflict with our opinion in Advance Tool and Dye, Inc. v. Superior Stampings, Inc., supra, the holding in the instant case shall be considered as overruling any conflicting holding in Advance Tool and Dye, Inc. v. Superior Stampings, Inc., supra.
On Petition for Rehearing of Case No. 61-445
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner has by petition for rehearing called to our attention our own decision in Advance Tool and Dye, Inc. v. Superior Stampings, Inc., 130 So. 2d 291. In that case we considered on petition for certiorari an order reinstating a cause originally dismissed pursuant to § 45.19, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., for want of prosecution. The opinion in that case did not pass upon the propriety of petition for writ of certiorari as a means for review of an order denying a motion to dismiss under section 45.19, Fla. Stat., F.S.A. To the extent that the opinion in the present case may be in conflict with our opinion in Advance Tool and Dye, Inc. v. Superior Stampings, Inc., supra, the holding in the instant case shall be considered as overruling any conflicting holding in Advance Tool and Dye, Inc. v. Superior Stampings, Inc., supra.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Girten v. Bouvier, 155 So. 2d 745 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)…of judgment or of procedure cannot, therefore, become the subject of a proceeding such as this. Petitioner has cited two cases in support of his position, Boucher v. Pure Oil Co., Fla.App.1957, 101 So. 2d 408; and Suez Co. v. Hodgins, Fla.App.1962, 137 So. 2d 231. In the Boucher case, it was held that the order was reviewable on certiorari and that defendant was not entitled on discovery to inquire whether plaintiff or her attorney knew of any statute, ordinance, or regulation controlling the installation of…1 / 2
-
Bowl Am. Fla., Inc. v. Schmidt, 386 So. 2d 1203 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)…ght to be reviewed in this case were dropped. This significant omission would be rendered meaningless if we were to accept routinely the review of such orders by certiorari. We decline jurisdiction and deny the petition. See Suez Company v. Hodgins, 137 So. 2d 231 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962). Petition for writ of common law certiora-ri is DENIED. DAUKSCH, C. J., concurs. UPCHURCH, J., dissenting with opinion.…
-
Emp'rs Fire Ins. Co. v. Blanchard, 234 So. 2d 381 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970)…ry, Inc., Fla.App.1960, 120 So. 2d 59, 70 A.L.R.2d 1199; White v. Spears, Fla.App.1960, 123 So. 2d 689; Riedel v. Driscoll, Fla.App. 1964, 127 So. 2d 924; Pullman Company v. Fleishel, Fla.App. 1958, 101 So. 2d 188; Suez Co. v. Hodgins, Fla.App.1962, 137 So. 2d 231; Izquierdo v. Miramar Motors, Inc., Fla.App. 1963, 155 So. 2d 420; Bloomfield v. Mayo, Fla.App. 1960, 119 So. 2d 417. The instant interlocutory order is not possessed of any of the characteristics which would make it reviewable by common law certio…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Kauffman v. Annabel King, 89 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 1956)
- Angell M. White and Anna White v. Spears, 123 So. 2d 689 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)
- Ford Motor Co. v. Havee, 123 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)
- United Life Ins. Co. v. Addie Kathleen Jowers, 118 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960)
- Advance Tool & DIE, Inc. v. Superior Stampings, Inc., 130 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)