STATE OF FLORIDA EX REL., CHARLES E. BOOTH, AS EXECUTOR UNDER THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF FLORENCE I. HERLAN, DECEASED, APPELLANT,
v.
HONORABLE JOHN S. BYINGTON, AS COUNTY JUDGE, IN AND FOR VOLUSIA COUNTY, FLORIDA, 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 affirmed a District Court's decision to discharge a rule nisi in prohibition, finding that the appellant failed to demonstrate the county judge exceeded his jurisdiction. The court emphasized that any final order by the judge would be subject to review on its merits.
No, the appellant failed to demonstrate that the county judge exceeded or proposed to exceed his jurisdiction. Therefore, the District Court did not err in discharging the rule nisi.
“The appellant has failed to demonstrate that the trial judge has exceeded or proposes to exceed his jurisdiction.”
This quote establishes the core reason for the court's decision, indicating the lack of grounds for prohibition.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant, as executor of an estate, sought a writ of prohibition against a county judge, alleging the judge was exceeding his jurisdiction. 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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Appellate Review cases and more on FLexlaw
We have taken jurisdiction of this appeal from a decision in an original prohibition proceeding in a District Court because of the view that the decision initially construed a controlling provision of the Florida Constitution. Article V, Section 4(2), Florida Constitution, F.S.A.; State ex rel. Booth v. Byington, Fla.App., 168 So. 2d 164.
We have heard oral arguments and have examined the record and briefs. The appellant has failed to demonstrate that the trial judge has exceeded or proposes to exceed his jurisdiction. Any order which he ultimately enters will be subject to appropriate review on the merits. The District Court, therefore, committed no error *2in discharging the rule nisi in prohibition. Its judgment is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
THORNAL C. J., and THOMAS, ROBERTS, DREW, O’CONNELL and ERVIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Card v. State, 497 So. 2d 1169 (Fla. 1986)…er of the legislature from being appointed to any civil office that was created, or the emoluments of which have been increased, during the time for which he was elected. In State ex rel. Booth v. Byington, 168 So. 2d 164 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964), aff'd, 178 So. 2d 1 (1965), the Court utilized the concept of de facto judge to validate actions taken by a county court judge who had allegedly passed the constitutionally mandated retirement age of 70 at the time he took the challenged actions. Similarly in Sawyer v.…
-
Kane v. Robbins, 556 So. 2d 1381 (Fla. 1989)…n third persons as those of an officer de jure. State ex rel. Hawthorne v. Wiseheart, 158 Fla. 267, 28 So. 2d 589 (1946); Sawyer v. State, 94 Fla. 60, 113 So. 736 (1927); State ex rel. Booth v. Byington, 168 So. 2d 164 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964), affirmed, 178 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1965). Moreover, the official acts of the incumbent school board members shall continue to be valid until such time as new members are duly appointed. See §§ 114.01, 114.04, 100.111, Fla.Stat. (1989). We remand the case with directions that t…
-
Danner v. Danner, 206 So. 2d 650 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)…ver their own orders, decrees and judgments, and can correct or vacate them at any time before they become final. State v. City of Sarasota, 1944, 154 Fla. 250, 17 So. 2d 109; State ex rel. Booth v. Byington, Fla.App.1964, 168 So. 2d 164, aff. Fla., 178 So. 2d 1; Butler v. Butler, Fla.App.1965, 172 So. 2d 899; Whitaker v. Wright, 1930, 100 Fla. 282, 129 So. 889. This well established rule is for the purpose of enabling the Court to prevent manifest injustices. Lewis v. Jennings, Fla.1953, 64 So. 2d 275. The…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State of Fla. ex rel. Charles E. Booth under the Last Will & Testament of Florence I. Herlan v. Honorable John S. Byington, 168 So. 2d 164 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964)