THOMAS N. BALIKES ET AL., PETITIONERS,
v.
GEORGE T. SPELEOS, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court discharged a writ of certiorari, finding it lacked jurisdiction to review a District Court of Appeal decision. The court determined there was no direct conflict of decisions as required by the Florida Constitution for its review.
No, the Florida Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction to review the decision because there is no direct conflict between decisions, which is a constitutional prerequisite for review.
“we have concluded that this court is without jurisdiction to review the cause, there being no direct conflict as required by the Constitution of Florida, Article V, Section 4(2), F.S.A.”
This quote establishes the primary reason for the court's decision: lack of jurisdiction due to the absence of a direct conflict between decisions.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe petitioners sought review via writ of certiorari of a decision by the District Court of Appeal, Third District, which affirmed a circuit court's j…
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 Writ Of Certiorari cases and more on FLexlaw
Through petition for writ of certiorari, there has been presented before us for review, a decision of the District Court of Appeal, Third District, reported at 173 So.2d 735, affirming the judgment of the circuit court in its granting of rule absolute in prohibition. We issued the writ, and the cause was argued both on jurisdiction and on the merits. After having heard oral argument and having considered the petition, the record, and the briefs of the parties, we have concluded that this court is without jurisdiction to review the cause, there being no direct conflict as required by the Constitution of Florida, Article V, Section 4(2), F.S.A. Accordingly, the writ of certiorari which we have previously issued is discharged and the cause dismissed.
It is so ordered.
THORNAL, C. J., O’CONNELL and CALDWELL, JJ., and KANNER (Retired), District Court Judge, concur.
ERVIN, J., dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Gellis, 375 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…e second information on res judi-cata grounds as the identical issue had previously been litigated between the parties in the defendant’s favor. Annot., 147 A.L.R. 991 (1943). Compare Balikes v. Speleos, 173 So. 2d 735 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965), cert. den. 193 So. 2d 434 (Fla.1967). The latter did not occur in this cause, and, accordingly, the instant information was not subject to dismissal. The state concedes that the trial court correctly dismissed count II of the information on speedy trial grounds. Fla.R.Crim.…
-
State v. Jones, 488 So. 2d 527 (Fla. 1986)…mplaint required to be made in a court of competent jurisdiction on which the accused may be tried in that court. Whidden v. State, 159 Fla. at 694, 32 So. 2d at 579. See also Balikes v. Speleos, 173 So. 2d 735 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965), cert. discharged, 193 So. 2d 434 (Fla.1967). That construction should apply to this case, where the trial court dismissed an affidavit charging probation violation. Violation of probation is a substantive criminal offense. The accused has a right to a hearing and to be represented…
Authorities Cited
- The Honorable Thomas N. Balikes v. Speleos, 173 So. 2d 735 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)