HOTEL ROOSEVELT CO., INC., A CORPORATION, AND WM. H. JOHNSTON, ANNE B. JOHNSTON, WM. H. JOHNSTON, JR., JANE GRUBB JOHNSTON, DONALD W. HOWELL, JULE ANN HOWELL, DONALD R. BURNETT, MARY R. BURNETT, JAMES J. PATTON, MARY PATTON, JOHN PATTON, JR., AND LUCILLE PATTON, PETITIONERS,
v.
MARIE L. HILL AND UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY COMPANY, RESPONDENTS
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.
Hotel Roosevelt and co-petitioners sought common law certiorari to review a trial court's denial of their motion to dismiss a complaint filed by respondents Marie Hill and United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company. The court denied certiorari, holding that common law certiorari is not available for interlocutory review in common law actions except in limited circumstances.
Common law certiorari is not available to petitioners to review the trial court's order denying their motion to dismiss. The Florida appellate courts have consistently refused to allow common law certiorari to be used as a vehicle for interlocutory review in common law actions.
“The appellate courts of this state have in many decisions refused to allow the extraordinary remedy of common law certiorari to be utilized by litigants as a vehicle for interlocutory review in common law actions.”
Establishes the established rule that certiorari is not available for interlocutory review in common law actions
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHotel Roosevelt and multiple individual petitioners filed a motion to dismiss respondents' complaint. The trial court denied this motion to dismiss. P…
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 Rule-Making Power cases and more on FLexlaw
Petitioner, Hotel Roosevelt, asks this court to review by way of common law certiorari the trial court’s order denying a motion to dismiss the respondents’ complaint. We granted oral argument only upon the question of jurisdiction. Petitioner seeks to distinguish the unbroken line of appellate decisions denying certio-rari from such an order upon the theory that petitioners should not be burdened with the tremendous expense of defending the voluminous complaints filed by respondents and others.
By their brief and argument, petitioners reason that this court’s opinion in Romedy v. Johnston, 193 So.2d 487 (Fla.App. 1st, 1967), is applicable to the instant complaint. In Romedy the trial court and this court were factually concerned with a plaintiff who occupied the status of a licensee, whereas in the instant cause the complaint reflects that plaintiffs hold the status of business invitees. It was not the intention of this court in its decision in Romedy to prejudge the issues involved in the instant and related causes arising out of the same catastrophe.
The appellate courts of this state have in many decisions refused to allow the extraordinary remedy of common law certiorari to be utilized by litigants as a vehicle for interlocutory review in common law actions. We hold that the remedy of common law certiorari is not available to petitioners in this case. In order that'there be no misunderstanding of this decision, it is emphasized that we have only concerned ourselves with the question of jurisdiction. In reaching this conclusion we have not con*234sidered the question of the sufficiency or insufficiency of plaintiffs’ complaint.
By applicable provisions of the Constitution of the State of Florida, the Supreme Court possesses the rule-making' power and for a considerable time has had the authority to provide for appeals from interlocutory orders rendered in common law actions where there are factual circumstances such as those alleged to exist in this cause. As of this date it has not found it proper to provide for such interlocutory appeals. This court will not attempt to amend the established rules of procedure and the settled rules of law of this state by granting the extra-ordinary writ of common law certiorari to review interlocutory orders entered in a common law action, save for the exceptions detailed in prior opinions upon the subject.
Certiorari denied.
RAWLS, C. J., and WIGGINTON and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So. 2d 1097 (Fla. 1987)…to strike or dismiss claims do not qualify for review by certiorari. Gordons Jewelry Co. of Florida, Inc. v. Feldman, 351 So. 2d 1117 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Shupack, 335 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Hotel Roosevelt Co. v. Hill, 196 So. 2d 233 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967); But see Radio Communications Corp. v. Oki Electronics of America, Inc., 277 So. 2d 289 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973); Lovi v. North Shore Bank, 137 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 143 So. 2d 492 (1962). Orders granting discovery,…
-
Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Arnett, 303 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)…r us to answer as determinative of this case) as to whether or not the extraordinary remedy of common law certiorari may be utilized by litigants as a vehicle for interlocutory review in common law actions (see Hotel Roosevelt Company, Inc. v. Hill, 196 So. 2d 233 (Fla.App.1st, 1967). The fourth defense contained in the petitioner’s amended answer alleged substantially that the plaintiff had litigated the question of liability of the defendant railroad in a previous suit by the same plaintiff against the sam…
-
Radice Realty & Constr. Corp. & Edgewater Park Sales, Inc. v. Emery D. Spurr, 252 So. 2d 241 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)…PER CURIAM. Certiorari denied. See Hotel Roosevelt Co. v. Hill, Fla.App.1967, 196 So. 2d 233. CROSS, C. J., and REED and OWEN, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Marvel v. State, 193 So. 2d 487 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967)