THE SEVEN SEAS, INC.,
v.
MYRTLE BUCKHOLTZ, A FEME SOLE
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 denied a petition for writ of certiorari challenging a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff, holding that certiorari cannot be used to review the weight or sufficiency of evidence where some evidence supports the judgment, and that the writ is limited to correcting fundamental procedural defects.
A writ of certiorari cannot be used to review the weight of evidence or determine the sufficiency of evidence where some evidence supports the judgment. Certiorari is limited to correcting fundamental procedural defects and violations of essential legal requirements, and is discretionary rather than a writ of right.
“The common law writ of certiorari cannot be made to serve the purpose of an appellate proceeding in the nature of a writ of error. The writ of certiorari involves a limited review of the proceedings of an inferior jurisdiction.”
Establishes the fundamental distinction between certiorari and writ of error review, limiting certiorari's scope
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA judgment was entered in the Civil Court of Record in Dade County in favor of the plaintiff. The Circuit Court affirmed the judgment on writ of error…
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 Discretionary Writ cases and more on FLexlaw
On Petition for Writ of Certiorari.
This case is before us on petition for writ of certiorari. The transcript has been filed with the petition. It cannot be said that there was substantial evidence to support the verdict in favor of the plaintiff.
A judgment was entered in the Civil Court of Record in and for Dade County. Writ of error was taken to the Circuit Court and the judgment was affirmed.
In Haile v. Bullock, 83 Fla. 538, 91 Sou. 683, we said:
“While a judgment will not, on certiorari, be quashed for mere errors in the proceedings that are not fundamental or manifestly unjust in their nature or material consequences; yet where the trial court did not proceed according to the essential requirements of the law, and material injury results therefrom, and the judgment has been affirmed by an intermediate appellate court, relief may in proper cases be had on certiorari, when that writ is allowed in the sound discretion of a superior court. See Balbontin v. State, 68 Fla. 84, 66 South. Rep. 421.”
In the case of Brinson v. Tharin, 99 Fla. 696, 127 Sou. 313, the limited office of the writ of certiorari was clearly defined in an opinion written by Mr. Justice Ellis for this Court. There we said:
“The common law wr.it of certiorari cannot be made to serve the purpose of an appellate proceeding in the nature of a writ of error. The writ of certiorari involves a limited review of the proceedings of an inferior jurisdiction.”
*207And, in the body of the same opinion, it was said:
“It is only the common law writ of certiorari which may be issued by this Court to review the proceedings of the Circuit Court as an appellate court and as that power is secured by the Constitution in this Court it may not be extended, limited or regulated by statute. Wé have seen that the attempt to'give it the effect of a writ of error and transferring the appellate jurisdiction of the Circuit Court to this Court is futile. Second Weatherford case, supra. Likewise vain is the attempt to limit the issuing of certiorari in the matter of time to a period within thirty days after the Circuit Court. Palmer v. Johnson, 97 Fla. 479, 121 So. Re. 466.
“The writ, confined to its legitimate scope, may issue within the Court’s discretion at any time to correct the procedure of courts wherein they have not observed those requirements of the law which are deemed to be essential to the administration . of justice. It is important, however, that the Court should not broaden or extend the scope of the writ.
“A judgment void for lack of jurisdiction or a proceeding characterized by a kind of tyranny in the failure to observe essential requirements should be subject to correction at the discretion of the Court vested with the power to issue the writ.
“The writ is one which issues on discretion and not as a writ of right. Jacksonville, T. & K. W. Ry. Co. v. Boy, 34 Fla. 389, 16 So. Rep. 290; Hunt v. City of Jacksonville, 34 Fla. 504, 16 So. R. 398; Holmberg v. Toomer, 78 Fla. 116, 82 So. R. 620; First National Bank of Gainesville v. Gibbs, supra.
“The common law writ of certiorari cannot be made to serve the purpose of an appellate proceeding in the nature *208of a writ of error. The writ involves a limited review of the proceeding of an inferior jurisdiction. It is original in the sense that the subject matter of the suit or proceeding which it brings before the Court are not here reinvestigated, tried and determined upon the merits generally as upon appeal at law or writ of error. Basnet v. City of Jacksonville, 18 Fla. 523.”
That the writ may not be used to review and determine the weight of the evidence or to determine the sufficiency of evidence where there is some evidence supporting the judgment complained of was pointed out in the opinion in the case of the Mutual Life Insurance -Company of New York v. Johnson, filed at this Term of the Court, but not yet reported.
On authority of the cases above named and authorities therein cited, the petition for certiorari is denied.
So ordered.
Terrell, Brown, Buford and Davis, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
North Miami v. Seaway Corp., 151 Fla. 301 (Fla. 1942)…of the law. It is well settled that this Court will not review conflicts and disputes appearing in the testimony on petition for a writ of certiorari. See Blue Belt Fertilizer Co. v. Pullen, 125 Fla. 164, 169 So. 615; Seven Seas, Inc., v. Buckholtz, 121 Fla. 205, 163 So. 567; Robbins Holding Co. v. Morris, 131 Fla. 205, 179 So. 404. The Seaway Corporation filed its amended declaration in the Civil Court of Record of Dade County against North Miami, a municipal corporation. One count of the amended declarat…
-
Tropical Park, Inc. v. Ratliff, 97 So. 2d 169 (Fla. 1957)…iciency of the evidence where there is some evidence supporting the judgment complained of, and the Supreme Court will not examine the evidence to determine whether it is of sufficient probative force to sustain the verdict; Seven Seas v. Buckholtz, 121 Fla. 205, 163 So. 567; City of Jacksonville Beach v. Waybright, 130 Fla.525, 178 So. 401.” The only criticism that we have of respondents’ admission is in connection with the words “some evidence”. The true rule is that this court will not, on certiorari, d…
-
Alliance FOR Conservation OF Natural Res. IN Pinellas Cnty. v. Furen, 110 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)…iciency of the evidence where there is some evidence supporting the judgment complained of, and the Supreme Court will not examine the evidence to determine whether it is of sufficient probative force to sustain the verdict; Seven Seas v. Buckholtz, 121 Fla. 205, 163 So. 567; City of Jacksonville Beach v. Waybright, 130 Fla. 525, 178 So. 401.’ “The only criticism that we have of respondents’ admission is in connection with the words ‘some evidence’. The true rule is that this court will not, on certiorari,…
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
- Brinson v. Tharin, 99 Fla. 696 (Fla. 1930)
- Basnet v. The City of Jacksonville, 18 Fla. 523 (Fla. 1882)
- Jacksonville v. Antone Boy, 34 Fla. 389 (Fla. 1894)
- Meade Hunt v. City of Jacksonville, 34 Fla. 504 (Fla. 1894)
- Palmer v. Johnson, 97 Fla. 479 (Fla. 1929)
- Haile v. Bullock, 83 Fla. 538 (Fla. 1922)
- Holmberg v. Toomer, 78 Fla. 116 (Fla. 1919)
- Balbontin v. State, 68 Fla. 84 (Fla. 1914)