R. E. JACQUES
v.
W. F. BLANTON, AS COUNTY JUDGE OF DADE COUNTY
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 affirmed a lower court's denial of a writ of prohibition, holding that the petition failed to demonstrate that the county judge was acting in excess of or without jurisdiction. Prohibition is not a substitute for a writ of error or certiorari.
No, the petition was insufficient because it did not allege or show that the County Judge was acting in excess of jurisdiction or without jurisdiction. Therefore, the denial of the writ of prohibition was proper.
“The petition for rule nisi or alternative writ in prohibition was entirely insufficient to show the exercise of excess jurisdiction by the County Judge or to show that the County Judge was without jurisdiction to try and determine the issues and to do the matters and things complained of.”
This quote explains why the petition for prohibition was inadequate.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe petitioner sought a writ of prohibition to prevent the County Judge of Dade County from proceeding with a case. The Circuit Court denied the alter…
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 Excess Of Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
—The writ of error in this case brings for review judgment denying alternative writ of prohibition entered by the Circuit Court of Dade County, Florida.
The petition for rule nisi or alternative writ in prohibition was entirely insufficient to show the exercise of excess jurisdiction by the County Judge or to show that the County Judge was without jurisdiction to try and determine the issues and to do the matters and things complained of.
Neither the merits of the cause nor errors in pais are matters of consideration in proceedings in prohibition.
Prohibition cannot be used in lieu of writ of error or in lieu of certiorari, but in prohibition it must be alleged and shown that the court or officer sought to be prohibited has either acted in excess of jurisdiction or without jurisdiction. See Crill v. State Road Department, 96 Fla. 110, 117 Sou. 765; State v. Malone, 40 Fla. 129, 23 Sou. 575; Curtis v. Albritton, 101 Fla. 853, 132 Sou. 677; Seaboard Realty Co. v. Seaboard All Florida Rwy., 91 Fla. 670, 108 Sou. 675; White v. State, 77 Fla. 528, 81 Sou. 639.
So the judgment must be and is affirmed.
So ordered.
Affirmed.
Ellis, C. J., and Whitfield, Brown, Buford and Chapman, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Clay v. State, 143 Fla. 204 (Fla. 1940)…an infant between the ages of 7 and 14; and the presumption is that the incapacity after 7 years of age decreases with the progress of his years. The defendants here do not fall within the common law rule cited. See Hamilton v. State, 133 Fla. 481, 182 So. 778; Kelley v. State, 79 Fla. 182, 83 So. 909, 16 A. L. R. 1465, 14 Am. Jur. 811, par. 61; 31 C. J. 1096, par. 218; 14 R. C. L. 264. The evidence shows that Mrs. Mary Louise Curtis, at her home and little store, 100 Magnolia Street, Jacksonville, Flori…
-
State ex rel. William Schwarz v. The Honorable David J. Heffernan, 142 Fla. 137 (Fla. 1940)…s jurisdiction and is not attempting to exceed such jurisdiction, prohibition will be denied. It does not lie to prevent the commission of errors on the part of a court that is proceeding within the scope of its jurisdiction. See Jacques v. Blanton, 133 Fla. 479, 182 So. 778; Peacock v. Miller, 123 Fla. 97, 166 So. 212; Sherlock v. City of Jacksonville, 17 Fla. 93; State v. Smith, 32 Fla. 476, 14 So. 43; State ex rel. Floral City Phos. Co. v. Hocker, 33 Fla. 283, 14 So. 586; State v. Malone, 40 Fla. 129, 23…
-
State ex rel. Hendricks v. Hunt, 70 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 1954)…e of the jurisdiction conferred by the statute is not a.mattér that may be determined in a prohibition proceeding but can be decided only by an appeal from the order. State ex rel. Schwarz v. Heffernan, 142 Fla. 137, 194 So. 313; Jacques v. Blanton, 133 Fla. 479, 182 So. 778. The question raised in the petition as to the judge’s power to impose a contempt penalty upon the relator is also not before us, because it has been made to appear at the bar of this Court that this question has become moot. See Wethe…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Gertrude A. Curtis v. Albritton, 101 Fla. 853 (Fla. 1931)
- Crill v. State Rd. Dep't of Fla., 96 Fla. 110 (Fla. 1928)
- The State of Fla. ex rel. Charles Rheinauer v. Malone, 40 Fla. 129 (Fla. 1898)
- Ex parte v. Seaboard All-Florida Railway, 91 Fla. 670 (Fla. 1926)
- White v. State of Fla. ex rel., 77 Fla. 528 (Fla. 1919)