SINCLAIR REFINING COMPANY
v.
PARKS C. HUNTER AND HARMON JONES, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS CO-PARTNERS DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME OF CENTRAL GEORGIA OIL CO
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 granted a rehearing on a petition for a writ of certiorari after initially denying it. The court determined the denial was improvidently entered because the petition was timely filed, and the case involves a constitutional right that can only be reviewed by certiorari.
Yes, the court can review the constitutional question. The statutory time limit for filing a petition for certiorari does not circumscribe the Supreme Court's power to review proceedings of inferior tribunals had without jurisdiction, especially when no other direct mode of review exists.
“By the review on certiorari the petitioner seeks an adjudication of the question of an alleged constitutional right and it is clear that he may only have the question reviewed by this Court by review on certiorari.”
Establishes the nature of the case and the necessity of certiorari review.
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 certiorari to review a constitutional question. The court initially denied the petition, believing it was filed too la…
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 Common Law Certiorari cases and more on FLexlaw
On April 11, 1939, we denied petitioner application for writ of certiorari.
On May 6 we entered order granting rehearing on the original petition.
It appears that our denial of the petition was improvidently entered on the ground that petition was not filed within the time prescribed by statute, Chapter 11357, Acts of Extraordinary Session 1925, Sec. 5167, C. G. L.
*90By the review on certiorari the petitioner seeks an adjudication of the question of an alleged constitutional right and it is clear that he may only have the question reviewed by this Court by review on certiorari.
In Palmer v. Johnson Construction Co., 97 Fla. 479, 121 So. 466, we held:
“If-Laws 1925 Extra-Sess. Chap. 11357, creating civil courts of record, vesting circuit courts with appellate jurisdiction and providing that petition for certiorari review in Supreme Court must be filed within 30 days after rendering of judgment by circuit court, was intended to circumscribe Supreme Court’s power, under Const., Art. V, Sec. 5, to review and quash, on common-law certiorari, proceedings of inferior tribunals, at least where such proceedings were had without jurisdiction and where no appeal or direct mode of reviewing such proceedings exist, it would be ineffectual:
“If writ of error to civil court of record was so fatally defective as to render it ineffectual as a means of invoking Circuit Court’s appellate jurisdiction, the Supreme Court could entertain petition for certiorari under Const., Art. V, Sec. 5, and quash judgment of circuit court in spite of fact that petition for certiorari was not filed within 30 days from rendition of such judgment, as required by Laws 1925, Extra Sess., Chap. 11357.” It is therefore, ordered that the writ of certiorari be awarded.
Oral argument denied.
Terrell, C. J., and Buford and Thomas, J. J., concur.
Brown, J., concurs in opinion and judgment.
Justices Wi-iitfield and Chapman not participating as authorized by Section 4687, Compiled General Laws of 1927, and Rule 21-A of the Rules of this Court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wyman v. Nussbaum, 159 Fla. 813 (Fla. 1947)…at the petition must be filed within thirty days. Under the statute and the rule, petitioner had sixty days from October 11, 1947, the date of the judgment appealed from, to bring it here for review, Sinclair Refining Company v. Hunter, 138 Fla. 89, 190 So. 501. The main purpose of Rule 35 of the Rules of this Court was to revoke the cumbersome and expensive practice of bringing the record to a member of this Court with request for supersedeas. So when such an application is made to the Circuit Court unde…
Authorities Cited
- Palmer v. Johnson, 97 Fla. 479 (Fla. 1929)