STATE, EX REL. JOHN DAVIDSON,
v.
L. L. PARKS AND HARRY N. SANDLER, AS JUDGES OF THE CIRCUIT COURT IN AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, AND HAZEL VICTORIA HUDSON, AS ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF JOHN EDWIN ARTILLE, DECEASED
This suit was before the Court the first time and reported in 170 Sou. Rep. 707. The facts are similar and involve the same principles of law this day enunciated in the suit of State, ex rel. H. E. Wolfe Construction Co., et al., v. L. L. Parks, et al., opinion this day filed. This case being controlled by the authority of said suit the demurrer is sustained, the rule » discharged, and the petition dismissed.
*65Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
Brown, J., concurs specially.
(concurring specially).—I concur in .the result, because, for the reasons stated by Mr. Chief Justice Ellis, in his concurring opinion in the companion case this day decided, and which is cited above, it is, I think, clearly made to appear that the Circuit Court has jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter and that it is not exceeding its jurisdiction. If it has made or may make any error in its rulings on the questions discussed in Mr. Justice Chapman’s opinion, they can be reviewed here by writ of error. But writ of prohibition does not lie. See the numerous cases cited in Peacock v. Miller, 123 Fla. 97, 166 So. 212.
Brown, J.
(concurring specially).—I concur in .the result, because, for the reasons stated by Mr. Chief Justice Ellis, in his concurring opinion in the companion case this day decided, and which is cited above, it is, I think, clearly made to appear that the Circuit Court has jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter and that it is not exceeding its jurisdiction. If it has made or may make any error in its rulings on the questions discussed in Mr. Justice Chapman’s opinion, they can be reviewed here by writ of error. But writ of prohibition does not lie. See the numerous cases cited in Peacock v. Miller, 123 Fla. 97, 166 So. 212.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Abel Oliveros Reyes v. State, 655 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)…mandatory or discretionary, must be authorized by statute. “It is well settled that independently of special statutory authorization, the court has no power to award costs against a defendant on [*115] conviction.” Lindsey v. Dykes, 129 Fla. 65, 67, 175 So. 792, 793 (1937). Thus, it is not the judiciary’s role to establish categories of taxable costs, but merely to impose those costs that the legislature has approved for use either in all cases or in selected cases. In a simpler world, a legislature might…
-
Haven Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Kirian, 579 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 1991)…. Price, 362 So. 2d 1337 (Fla.1978); School Bd. v. Surette, 281 So. 2d 481 (Fla.1973), receded from on other grounds, School Bd. v. Price; Shingleton v. Bussey, 223 So. 2d 713 (Fla.1969); Artille v. Davidson, 126 Fla. 219, 170 So. 707 (1936), aff’d, 129 Fla. 64, 175 So. 792 (1937). The legislation found substantive in VanBibber was enacted in response to these cases, in particular Shingleton and Markert, and was clearly designed to overturn Markert. Such is not the situation in the case under review.…
-
Williams v. State, 596 So. 2d 758 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)…went forward with the plea, but objected to the extra fine and challenged it on appeal. It is well established that a court lacks the power to impose costs in a criminal case unless specifically authorized by statute. Lindsey v. Dykes, 129 Fla. 65,175 So. 792 (1937); Masters v. State, 358 So. 2d 1143 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Wood v. City of Jacksonville, 248 So. 2d 176 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971); City of Miami v. Gilbert, 102 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958). The circuit court rejected Williams’s argument that the cou…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Artille v. Davidson, 126 Fla. 219 (Fla. 1936)
- Peacock v. Lon Miller, 123 Fla. 97 (Fla. 1936)