PETER PANTAGES, APPELLANT,
v.
METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS EXAMINING BOARD, APPELLEE
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.
Metropolitan Dade County appealed an order on a mandate, contending it was inconsistent with the prior appellate ruling which had remanded the cause for entry of an order to remedy procedural defects and accord due process.
The appellate court reviewed the county's contention that the trial court's order was inconsistent with the mandate, focusing on whether the county had complied with the mandate to provide due process.
Metropolitan Dade County appealed an order entered pursuant to a prior appellate mandate. The county contended that the order, which directed them to …
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 Void Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant petitioned for a writ of certiorari in the circuit court seeking review of an action of the Metropolitan Dade County Electrical Contractors Examining Board. The writ was denied and the petition dismissed with prejudice on August 11, 1966, after a hearing before the circuit court. No appeal was taken from that judgment.
Thereafter petitioner-appellant moved in the circuit court, pursuant to Rule 1.540(b) (4), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, 31 F.S.A., for an order vacating the judgment of August 11, 1966. In his motion the appellant asserted that the judgment of the circuit court was void because the action of the Metropolitan Dade County Electrical Contractors Examining Board was void under the law established by this court in Florida State Board of Dental Examiners v. Graham, Fla.App. 1966, 187 So.2d 104.
Without determining whether the action of the Examining Board was void, voidable, erroneous, or lawful, we hold that the trial judge correctly determined that the appellant’s motion did not state a ground for relief under Rule 1.540(b) (4), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. Cf. Bodner v. Blackwelder, Fla.App.1965, 181 So.2d 373. The circuit court had jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties and followed established procedure; it entered a final judgment which was not timely appealed. Therefore, the judgment was not void.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Bodner v. Blackwelder, 181 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- The Fla. State Bd. OF Dental Exam'rs v. Graham, 187 So. 2d 104 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)
- Lata v. Exclusive Rests., Inc., 187 So. 2d 104 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)