JOHN H. COUSE AND BARNETTA S. COUSE, PETITIONERS,
v.
THE CANAL AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, A BODY CORPORATE UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
In an eminent domain proceeding, petitioners sought certiorari review to challenge an interlocutory order denying their motion to dismiss, primarily on grounds that Florida's declaration of taking statute was unconstitutional. The appellate court lacked jurisdiction to review the constitutional question but certified it as a matter of great public interest for Supreme Court consideration.
The appellate court lacked constitutional jurisdiction to review the validity of the state statute, as that jurisdiction is vested exclusively in the Supreme Court. However, the court certified the constitutional question as involving great public interest for Supreme Court review and found the remaining grounds for the motion to dismiss without substantial merit.
“Since this court possesses no constitutional jurisdiction to review a final decree passing upon the validity of a state statute, which jurisdiction is vested exclusively in the Supreme Court, we consider and so hold that by the same token we have no jurisdiction to pass upon this type of question in an interlocutory review by certiorari as is sought in this case.”
Establishes that the District Court of Appeal lacks jurisdiction over constitutional questions regarding state statutes, which are exclusively within the Supreme Court's purview.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioners John H. Couse and Barnetta S. Couse challenged the Canal Authority's eminent domain action against them. The trial court denied their moti…
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 Jurisdiction Of District Courts Of Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
Petitioners seek review by certiorari of an interlocutory order entered in an eminent domain proceeding which denied their motion to dismiss the action on the grounds (1) that F.S. Section 74.051, F.S.A., authorizing the entry of an order or judgment based upon a declaration of taking is unconstitutional; (2) that the complaint is insufficient because of a failure to attach thereto as exhibits certain items of proof deemed by petitioners to be essential; and, (3) refusal of the trial court to permit petitioners to call and examine a witness for the purpose of establishing facts alleged by them to show fraud or bad faith in the institution of this action.
Since the principal point raised by the petition for certiorari challenges the correctness of the trial court’s ruling that F.S. Section 74.051, F.S.A., authorizing the entry *842of judgment on declaration of taking, is constitutional and valid, this action was first commenced in the Supreme Court of Florida. Article V, Section 4, Florida Constitution, F.S.A., fixing the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court provides that appeals from trial courts may be taken directly to the Supreme Court, as a matter of right, from final judgments or decrees directly passing upon the validity of a state statute * * *. For reasons unexpressed in its order, the Supreme Court declined to grant the review sought by the petition filed herein, and transferred the case to this court for its consideration.
Article V, Section 5(3), Florida Constitution, provides that appeals from trial courts may be taken to the courts of appeal as a matter of right from all final judgments or decrees except those from which appeals may be taken directly to the Supreme Court or to the circuit court
Since this court possesses no constitutional jurisdiction to review a final decree passing upon the validity of a state statute, which jurisdiction is vested exclusively in the Supreme Court, we consider and so hold that by the same token we have no jurisdiction to pass upon this type of question in an interlocutory review by certiorari as is sought in this case. Being of the view, however, that petitioners, as well as all affected state officials, agencies, and property owners, are entitled to a definitive adjudication with respect to the validity of the declaration of taking provisions of our statutes governing proceedings in eminent domain, and no good reason appearing why a definitive adjudication of this issue cannot be made by the Supreme Court at this stage of the proceeding as well as after final judgment is ultimately entered in this case, we shall file our certificate to the effect that this decision involves a question of great public interest in order that the Supreme Court may again be requested to review and adjudicate the question at this time.
We have carefully considered the remaining points raised by the petition for writ of certiorari, and the authorities submitted in support thereof, but find them to be without substantial merit. The writ of certiorari is accordingly denied.
JOHNSON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. G.P., 429 So. 2d 786 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…0(b)(2)(B). Where the court has a jurisdictional limitation to the consideration of the appeal from a final judgment; certiora-ri may not be used to circumvent that limitation. State v. Brown, supra; Nellen v. State, supra; Couse v. Canal Authority, 197 So. 2d 841 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967), cert. discharged, 209 So. 2d 865 (Fla.1968). We recognize that we are in conflict with several of our sister courts which have adopted a more expansive interpretation of the petition for certiorari,9 but in light of the foregoin…
-
Couse v. The Canal Auth. of the State of Fla., 209 So. 2d 865 (Fla. 1968)…ultimately entered in this case, we shall file our certificate to the effect that this decision involves a question of great public interest in order that the Supreme Court may again be requested to review and adjudicate the question at this time.” 197 So. 2d 841, 842. The petition was originally transferred by this Court to the district court under Rule 2.1 a(5) (d), F.A.R., 32 F.S.A., as one for review of an interloctuory order in a proceeding at law, which under the provisions of Art. V of the Florida Co…
-
Hudson v. The Canal Auth. of the State of Fla., 213 So. 2d 727 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968)…ment of counsel and are convinced and so hold that the primary questions involved herein have been answered adversely to the appellant in the following cases: Staplin v. Canal Authority, 208 So. 2d 853 (Fla.App. 1st, 1968); Couse v. Canal Authority, 197 So. 2d 841 (Fla.App. 1st, 1967) and 209 So. 2d 865 (Fla.1968) and therefore on the authority of the cases cited supra, the order appealed from is hereby Affirmed. JOHNSON, Acting C. J., SPECTOR, J., and PATTEN, GEO. L., Associate Judge, concur.…