HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY AVIATION AUTHORITY, A PUBLIC BODY CORPORATE, APPELLANT,
v.
R. R. WALDEN, AS TAX ASSESSOR OF HILLSBOROUGH 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.
The Florida Supreme Court transferred a case back to the District Court of Appeal, holding that the District Court improperly transferred the case to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court found that although the trial court ruled on the validity of a statute, the appellant failed to assign error or argue this point on appeal, thus divesting the Supreme Court of jurisdiction.
No, the Florida Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction in this instance. The failure to assign error or argue the trial court's ruling on the statute's validity means the issue is not properly before the appellate court.
“The matter of the validity of the statute was not presented for appellate review.”
Establishes that the core issue of the statute's validity was not properly raised on appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Hillsborough County Aviation Authority appealed a declaratory relief judgment to the District Court of Appeal. The trial court had ruled on the va…
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 Assignments Of Error cases and more on FLexlaw
In a proceeding for declaratory relief the Chancellor specifically passed on the validity of a statute. Appellant here filed notice of appeal to the District Court of Appeal, Second District. However, it did not assign error directed to the ruling on the statute; nor did it argue the ruling in its brief. The matter of the validity of the statute was not presented for appellate review. Nevertheless, the District Court has sua sponte transferred the case to this Court on the theory that the trial judge initially passed on the validity of a state statute. The trial judge did do this but his holding has never been assigned as error nor has it ever been argued in any appellate brief. There is simply no jurisdictional vehicle to bring the matter here. We have so held on two occasions. City of Miami v. Steckloff, 111 So.2d 446 (Fla.1959), and Roberts v. State, 181 So.2d 646, (Fla.1966). Conversely, the cause fell within the jurisdiction of the District Court when it was initially taken there and we must return it from whence it came.
This entire record is therefore returned to the District Court of Appeal, Second District, for consideration and ultimate disposition, unless within five days from the date hereof the parties or any of them show cause to the contrary.
It is so ordered.
THORNAL, C. J. and ROBERTS, DREW and O’CONNELL, JJ„ concur.
THOMAS, J., agrees to conclusion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hillsborough Cnty. Aviation Auth. v. Walden, 210 So. 2d 193 (Fla. 1968)…explaining the chronology of this litigation and our present jurisdiction, we note that after we transferred the original appeal to us to the District Court of Appeal, Second District (see Hillsborough County Aviation Authority v. Walden, Fla. Sup., 196 So. 2d 912), the parties below stipulated with the consent of the District Court that since the Circuit Court had held F.S. Section 192.62(2) (c), F.S.A., invalid in its interlocutory decree insofar as it was applied to the instant case, such holding could be…
-
Citizens Nat'l Bank OF Naples v. Ind. Ins. Co. & Nat'l Am. Ins. Co., 340 So. 2d 107 (Fla. 1976)…of this Court because the trial court ruled Section 77.031, Florida Statutes (1975) unconstitutional. See generally Unique Caterers, Inc. v. Rudy’s Farm Co., 338 So. 2d 1067 (Fla., 1976). Here, as in Hillsborough County Aviation Authority v. Walden, 196 So. 2d 912 (Fla.1967) on retransfer 210 So. 2d 193 (Fla.1968), the “trial judge did do this but his holding has never been assigned as error nor has it ever been argued in any appellate brief.” At 913. In the present ease, moreover, the appellant alleges in an…
-
Sgt. Nelson Perry v. Metro. Dade Cnty., 427 So. 2d 295 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…rt also found that the officers’ claims were barred by laches. The County argues that because the appellants have not in any manner made the laches finding an issue on appeal, the point is abandoned, Hillsborough County Aviation Authority v. Walden, 196 So. 2d 912 (Fla.1967); City of Miami v. Steckloff, 111 So. 2d 446 (Fla.1959); Indianapolis Morris Plan Corp. v. Portela, 364 So. 2d 840 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Morris v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Co., 346 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Time Insurance Co.…
Authorities Cited
- City OF Miami v. Steckloff, 111 So. 2d 446 (Fla. 1959)
- Roberts v. State, 181 So. 2d 646 (Fla. 1966)