STATE EX REL. SAM VANCE, SIDNEY T. LAURENCE, AND CLAUDE RIGSBY, RELATORS,
v.
JOSEPH WELLMAN, RICHARD W. ALLEN AND EDWARD T. TIETJEN, 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.
The Florida District Court of Appeal dismissed an original proceeding for a writ of quo warranto, holding that such petitions should generally be filed in the circuit court first to preserve the litigant's right to two levels of review. The court emphasized orderly procedure and the philosophy of the judiciary article of the constitution.
No, the District Court of Appeal should not entertain an original proceeding for a writ of quo warranto when the circuit courts have concurrent original jurisdiction, as this would bypass the first level of review and violate the philosophy of the judiciary article.
“Orderly procedure dictates that we respect that philosophy and that petitions for extraordinary writs be heard first in the circuit court unless there is some compelling reason for invoking the original jurisdiction of an appellate court.”
Establishes the court's reasoning for dismissing the case.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRelators filed an original proceeding in the District Court of Appeal seeking a writ of quo warranto. The court noted that the constitution grants bot…
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 Quo Warranto cases and more on FLexlaw
Article V, § 5(3) of our Constitution, F.S.A. provides that a District Court of Appeal may issue the writ of quo warranto sought in this original proceeding. Section 6(3) grants the same jurisdiction to the circuit courts. The philosophy underlying the judiciary article vouchsafes to every litigant two days in court and if the matter were initially heard in the circuit court it would be reviewable here or, in a limited category of circumstances, in the Supreme Court. Orderly procedure dictates that we respect that philosophy and that petitions for extraordinary writs be heard first in the circuit court unless there is some compelling reason for invoking the original jurisdiction of an appellate court. See State ex rel. Clark v. Klingensmith, 1936, 126 Fla. 124, 170 So. 616, in which there were factual issues to be tried, which may not be the case here, but which appears to us to be immaterial. We cannot transfer the case because the jurisdiction invoked is original and not appellate, State ex rel. Winton v. Town of Davie, Fla.1961, 127 So.2d 671. Accordingly we dismiss the information in the nature of quo warranto on our own motion without prejudice to the right of relators to proceed in the appropriate circuit court.
LILES, C. J., and McNULTY, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Whiley v. Hon. Rick Scott, 79 So. 3d 702 (Fla. 2011)…to call a second special session). As a general rule, unless there is a compelling reason for invoking the original jurisdiction of a higher court, a quo warranto proceeding should be commenced in circuit court. See State ex rel. Vance v. Wellman, 222 So. 2d 449, 449 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969). This Court may choose to consider extraordinary writ petitions “where the functions of government would be adversely affected absent an immediate determination by this Court.” Chiles, 714 So. 2d at 457; see, e.g., Allen v. B…
-
State v. Williams, 254 So. 2d 548 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971)…ouble jeopardy. . See, Hornbeck v. State (Fla.1955), 77 So. 2d 876 (officer shot by either robber or fellow officer) ; and Griffith v. State (Fla.App.1965), 171 So. 2d 597 (bystander shot by robbery victim). But see, State v. Andreu (Fla.App.1969), 222 So. 2d 449. . (1955), 381 Pa. 500, 113 A. 2d 464. . (1958), 391 Pa. 550, 138 A. 2d 447. . Commonwealth ex rel. Smith v. Myers (1970), 438 Pa. 218, 261 A. 2d 550, 556. . We think it not inappropriate at this juncture, to point out that Pennsylvania has pres…
-
Wright v. State, 344 So. 2d 1334 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)…out the ambit of the statute, i. e., no innocent party killed. Wil [*1337] liams, supra. With regard to category three Hornbeck, supra, suggested that the felony-murder rule would be applicable to that factual situation. However, in State v. Andreu, 222 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969) our sister court held the felony-murder rule inapplicable where one police officer was killed by a second officer, the latter trying to apprehend the defendant. Looking to the factual circumstances in the case sub judice, which…
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
- State v. Ward Klingensmith, 126 Fla. 124 (Fla. 1936)
- State v. Town OF Davie, 127 So. 2d 671 (Fla. 1961)