GROWERS MARKETING SERVICE, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, PETITIONER,
v.
DOYLE CONNER, AS COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE, AND JACK GOLDTRAP, D/B/A JACK'S FRUIT COMPANY, 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.
Growers Marketing Service sought review of an administrative order awarding damages for breach of a citrus delivery contract, challenging the Commissioner of Agriculture's calculation of damages that used boxes instead of pounds solids as the multiplier, resulting in a damages award of $2,473.00 instead of approximately $11,469.04.
The court has power to issue a writ of certiorari under the Florida Constitution to correct obvious errors of calculation in administrative orders. The miscalculation was not invited error because invited error requires that a party contend for a rule of law in the trial court and later allege it was erroneous on appeal; an inadvertent omission of a necessary computational factor does not constitute invited error.
[1] A court may grant a writ of common law certiorari to correct a patent error of calculation in an administrative order.
[2] An inadvertent omission of a factor necessary for computation does not constitute invited error.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Invited error occurs when a rule of law is contended for by a party in the trial court who alleges on appeal that the rule was erroneous. The inadvertent omission of a factor necessary to be considered in computation is not invited error.”
Establishes the legal standard for invited error and clarifies that unintentional omissions in calculation do not qualify as invited error.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJack Goldtrap contracted to deliver 10,000 boxes of oranges at 30 cents per pound solids but defaulted. Growers Marketing Service purchased replacemen…
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 Invited Error cases and more on FLexlaw
Growers Marketing Service complained, pursuant to Fla.Stat. § 601.66 (1969), F.S. A., that Jack Goldtrap contracted to deliver 10,000 boxes of oranges at 30 cents per pound solids. Goldtrap defaulted, and petitioner bought in the open market at an average of 54.73 cents per pound solids. The Commissioner of Agriculture found for Growers Marketing Service. In its memorandum on damages, Growers’ attorney stated, "Thus, by calculation, Complainant would be owed * * * .2473 cents times 10,000 boxes ($2,473.00) * * * ” The Commissioner’s order used this figure, although the record suggests an average of 4.628 pounds solids per box.
Growers asked the Commissioner to correct the error which resulted from using boxes rather than pounds solids as a multiplier, but the Commissioner declined to amend the order.
Certiorari brought in the Circuit Court pursuant to Fla.Stat. § 601.66 (1969), F.S.A. was transferred here on the finding of the Circuit Judge that the statute did not provide for review by certiorari under these circumstances, but that this court had power to grant a writ of common law cer-tiorari. It would be interesting to explore Chapter 601 with a view to determining whether Section 601.66(4) confines certio-rari on the petition of the complainant to those cases in which the complaint has been dismissed.1 That seems unnecessary in a case in which there has been a patent error of calculation. This court has power to issue certiorari under Fla.Const. Art. V, § 5, F.S.A. Whether we would in a case in which error is not obvious construe Section 601.66 in favor of our own or the Circuit Court’s jurisidiction is a question we do not decide.
Goldtrap’s argument that the miscalculation was “invited error” is without merit. Invited error occurs when a rule of law is contended for by a party in the trial court who alleges on appeal that the rule was erroneous. The inadvertent omission of a factor necessary to be considered in computation is not invited error.2
The Commissioner’s order is quashed with directions correctly to calculate damages.
PIERCE, C. J., and LILES, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jack's Fruit Co. v. Growers Mktg. Serv., Inc., 261 So. 2d 171 (Fla. 1972)…ion for writ of mandamus or, in the alternative, prohibition, seeking to vacate and stay enforcement of a mandate of the District Court of Appeal, Second District entered pursuant to that court’s opinion in Growers Marketing Service, Inc. v. Conner, 249 So. 2d 486 (Fla.App.2d, 1971). We issued the rule nisi. In essence, petitioner has challenged the jurisdiction of the District Court to hear and consider the merits of the dispute between itself and Growers Marketing Service. The facts of the case are adequat…
-
Brown v. Dykes, 601 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)…sue.” The trial court subsequently receded from this position, and Dykes does not seek review of this particular decision. . We reject Ms. Brown’s argument that Dykes "invited" the trial court’s error. See Growers Marketing Service, Inc. v. Conner, 249 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971).…
-
Jack's Fruit Co. v. Growers Mktg. Serv., Inc., 488 F.2d 493 (5th Cir. 1973)…n decided on the briefs filed in the Polk County Circuit Court, Jack’s received a decision of the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second Division, reversing the Commissioner on the damage issue. [*494] Growers Marketing Service, Inc. v. Conner, 249 So. 2d 486 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1971). Jack’s petitioned for rehearing, arguing (1) that the District Court of Appeal lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the Polk County Circuit Court's ruling on Growers’ petition for rehearing was not an order which effec…
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
- State v. Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co., 93 Fla. 104 (Fla. 1927)
- Victor Hotel Owners, Inc. v. Sperling, 104 So. 2d 120 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)
- Arsenault v. Thomas, 104 So. 2d 120 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)
- Davis v. Combination Awning & Shutter Co., 62 So. 2d 742 (Fla. 1953)