PAUL SAUL IKENSON AND MAURA L. JONES, APPELLANTS,
v.
THE METROPOLITAN COURT IN AND FOR DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, ET AL., APPELLEES
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.
Appellants sought a writ of prohibition to challenge the Metropolitan Court's jurisdiction over them, arguing the complaint was insufficient because it was based on bench dockets not supported by affidavits under oath and issued by a clerk without personal knowledge. The court held that prohibition does not lie to test jurisdiction over the person when the court has jurisdiction over the subject matter, and appellants have an adequate alternative remedy by appeal.
A writ of prohibition does not lie to test the jurisdiction of the trial court over a person when the trial court has jurisdiction over the subject matter. A defendant who raises questions of jurisdiction over their person is not prejudiced by participating in trial and defending on the merits, and may obtain review of the jurisdictional question upon appeal.
“prohibition does not lie to test the jurisdiction of the trial court over a person of the defendant when the trial court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the offenses”
Core holding establishing that prohibition is unavailable when subject matter jurisdiction exists
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants were charged in Metropolitan Court in Dade County based on bench dockets issued by the clerk without affidavits under oath and without any …
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 Adequate Remedy On Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellants were petitioners for a writ of prohibition in the circuit court. *296By their petition in the circuit court they challenged the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Court in and for Dade County to try them upon the ground that the complaint filed in the Metropolitan Court was insufficient. The writ of prohibition was filed after trial and before sentence. We adopt the following portions of the opinion of the circuit judge as the opinion of this court:
“This matter came on to be heard upon the petitioners’ suggestion for prohibition and rule to show cause for writ of prohibition, and the respondents’ motion to dismiss petition for writ of prohibition and quash order to show cause.
“The petitioners challenged the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Court in and for Dade County, Florida, on the ground that the petitioners were unlawfully and illegally arrested by virtue of bench dockets (1) not predicated upon affidavits under oath, (2) no person signed or made written complaint against the petitioners, (3) the bench dockets were issued by the Clerk or respondents’ Court, who had no personal knowledge of any of the alleged offenses.
“Respondents’ motion to dismiss, petition for writ of prohibition and quash order to show cause, came on for hearing and petitioners filed a memorandum of law subsequent to such hearing. The respondents contend that prohibition proceedings do not lie to gain relief from an alleged'illegal arrest.
, “This Court, after due consideration, is of the opinion that prohibition does not lie to test the jurisdiction of the- trial court over a person of the defendant when the trial court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the offenses. The record affirmatively showed that the Metropolitan Court, in and for Dade County, Florida, does have jurisdiction over the subject matter, to-wit: Section 21-20(a), 21-20(b), 21-20(c), and 21-26 of the Code of Metropolitan Dade County, Florida.
“A person who raises questions of jurisdiction of his or her person is not prejudiced by participating in the trial and defending the matter on the merits and may obtain a review of the question of jurisdiction upon appeal.
“It is, therefore, the opinion and judgment of this Court that petitioners have misconceived their remedy. They have an adequate remedy by appeal, if they so desire.”
See also State ex rel. Ferre v. Kehoe, Fla. App.1965, 179 So.2d 403.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State of Fla. ex rel. Jose A. Ferre v. Honorable James W. Kehoe, 179 So. 2d 403 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)