DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, IRVING G. MCNAYR, COUNTY MANAGER OF DADE COUNTY, AND T. A. BUCHANAN, AS ACTING PUBLIC SAFETY DIRECTOR OF DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, WITH THE TITLE METROPOLITAN SHERIFF OF DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, APPELLANTS,
v.
THOMAS J. KELLY, 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 Third District Court of Appeal determined it lacked jurisdiction over an interlocutory appeal concerning the office of sheriff of Metropolitan Dade County because the case involved constitutional interpretation and charter validity that fell within the Supreme Court's exclusive appellate jurisdiction. The court transferred the cause to the Florida Supreme Court.
The Third District Court of Appeal lacks jurisdiction over this appeal because it involves an interlocutory order in a chancery suit where the final decree will necessarily address the validity of the Metropolitan Dade County Charter and construe the Florida Constitution, matters within the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Florida Supreme Court under Article V, Section 4(2) of the Florida Constitution.
“the appeal should have been taken to the Supreme Court of Florida because it appears that the interlocutory order involved is made in a chancery suit in which the final decree would be directly appeal-able to the Supreme Court, in that such decree necessarily will pass on the validity of portions of the Metropolitan Dade County Charter and will construe a controlling provision of the Florida Constitution”
Establishes the court's conclusion regarding lack of jurisdiction
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAn interlocutory appeal was taken to the Third District Court of Appeal regarding the right to the job or office of sheriff of Metropolitan Dade Count…
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 Appellate Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
Upon hearing argument on this interlocutory appeal and on a motion for a constitutional writ, involving the right to the job or office of sheriff of Metropolitan Dade County, and prior to rendering decision thereon, this court has concluded that the appeal should have been taken to the Supreme Court of Florida because it appears that the interlocutory order involved is made in a chancery suit in which the final decree would be directly appeal-able to the Supreme Court, in that such decree necessarily will pass on the validity of portions of the Metropolitan Dade County Charter and will construe a controlling provision of the Florida Constitution as it relates to the Metropolitan Dade County government. See Art. V, § 4(2), Fla. Const., F.S.A. By the constitutional provision just cited, it is provided that appeals-from trial courts may be taken directly to-the Supreme Court from such orders or decrees. At the hearing before us counsel appeared to be of the view that the appeal was within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court but took the position that appeal to this court was optional. Such is not the case. See Stein v. Darby, Fla.1961, 134 So.2d 232, 236. The provision-of the Constitution relating to the jurisdiction of the district courts of appeal excepts-from the judgments and orders appealable to the district courts “those from which appeals •may be taken direct to the supreme-court.” Article V, § 5(3), Fla.Const. We have noted the following instances in which the Supreme Court entertained direct appeals in matters relating to validity of actions under the Home Rule Charter of Metropolitan Dade County: Dade County v. Kelly, Fla.1958, 99 So.2d 856; Chase v. Cowart, Fla.1958, 102 So.2d 147; Dade County v. Dade County League of Municipalities, Fla.1958, 104 So.2d 512; Dade County v. Young Democratic Club of Dade County, Fla.1958, 104 So.2d 636; Miami Shores Village v. Cowart, Fla.1958, 108 So.2d 468; City of Miami Beach v. Cowart, Fla.1959, 116 So.2d 432.
*384Being of the view that we do not have jurisdiction, and in order that the question as to jurisdiction of this appeal may be determined by the court of paramount jurisdiction, we make this transfer of the cause to the Supreme Court under rule 2.1, subd. a(5) (d), F.A.R., 31 F.S.A. Whereupon, it is ordered that the notice of appeal, together with' all papers filed prior to February 12, 1963, shall on that date be transferred to the Supreme Court of Florida as the proper court having jurisdiction in this cause.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lieberman v. Marshall, 236 So. 2d 120 (Fla. 1970)…nder Section Four, Article I, Declaration of Rights, Florida Constitution, are involved. In view of the fact that a final judgment would be directly ap-pealable to this Court, we accept jurisdiction of the interlocutory appeal. Dade County v. Kelly, 149 So. 2d 382 (Fla.App.1963). At the outset, certain basic principles should be considered. The powers and responsibilities of The Board of Regents, a university president, or principal of a public school, are awesome and extensive. The administrator has wide di…
-
Scenic Hills Util. Co., Inc. v. City OF Pensacola, 156 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963)…rements, conditions, limitations and terms contained in subsections 4(a) to 4(j) inclusive shall apply to any such application.”. . Article V, Section 5, Constitution of Florida, Stein v. Darby, Fla., 134 So. 2d 232; Dade County v. Kelly, Fla.App., 149 So. 2d 382.…
Authorities Cited
- Chase v. Faris Cowart, 102 So. 2d 147 (Fla. 1958)
- Miami Shores Vill. v. Faris N. Cowart, 108 So. 2d 468 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)
- Dade Cnty. v. Dade Cnty. League OF Municipalities & Dean Claussen, 104 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 1958)
- Abe Stein and Alice N. Stein v. Darby, 134 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 1961)
- Dade Cnty. v. Young Democratic Club OF Dade Cnty. & Gerard Pucci, 104 So. 2d 636 (Fla. 1958)
- Dade Cnty. v. Kelly, 99 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 1957)
- City OF Miami Beach v. Farls Cowart, 116 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 1959)