CONTINENTAL MORTGAGE INVESTORS, A MASSACHUSETTS BUSINESS TRUST, PETITIONER,
v.
CHARLES H. BLANCHARD D/B/A BLANCHARD CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court discharged a writ of certiorari, finding it lacked jurisdiction to review a District Court of Appeal decision. The court determined that the writ was improvidently issued after reviewing the case.
No, the Florida Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction to review the decision of the District Court of Appeal in this instance.
“it appears that the writ was improvidently issued for the reason that this court is without jurisdiction in the premises.”
This quote explains the court's primary reason for discharging the writ.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceContinental Mortgage Investors sought review of a decision by the District Court of Appeal, First District, which had reversed and remanded a judgment…
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 Conflict Certiorari cases and more on FLexlaw
Petitioner seeks by conflict certiorari to review a decision of the District Court of Appeal, First District, reversing and remanding with directions a judgment entered by the Circuit Court of Escambia County, Florida. The history, factual background, dictum and decision sought to be reviewed are reported as Blanchard v. Continental Mortgage Investors, 217 So.2d 586.
Writ of certiorari was issued and argument heard, and the court having examined the petition, record and briefs, it appears that the writ was improvidently issued for the reason that this court is without jurisdiction in the premises.
Accordingly, the writ of certiorari heretofore issued in this cause is discharged.
It is so ordered.
ERVIN, C. J., and ROBERTS, THOR-NAL and ADKINS, JJ., concur.
DREW, J., dissents.