MEDLIN-PEACOCK BUICK COMPANY, A CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF-IN-ERROR,
v.
IDA L. BROWARD, ALIAS IDA L. KAUFMANN, DEFENDANT-IN-ERROR
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.
Medlin-Peacock Buick Company sought certiorari review of a Circuit Court decision in Duval County. The Florida Supreme Court quashed the writ, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate the substantial errors of procedure or palpable abuse of discretion necessary to warrant certiorari review.
The writ of certiorari is quashed because the petitioner failed to show that the essential requirements of the law were not complied with in the Court below. Certiorari review requires a showing of substantial procedural errors, palpable abuse of power in determining facts, or serious misconduct that materially injured the petitioner.
“Review by certiorari does not ordinarily extend to a consideration of the probative force of conflicting testimony, but it may include substantial errors of procedure that are calculated to materially injure the complaining party.”
Establishes the limited scope of certiorari review, excluding mere review of testimony conflicts while permitting review of substantial procedural errors.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMedlin-Peacock Buick Company, a corporation, sought certiorari review of a decision by the Circuit Court of Duval County involving Ida L. Broward. The…
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 Appellate Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
This ease is before the Court on certiorari to the Circuit Court of Duval County.
In discussing the office of the writ of certiorari in the case of Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company, a corporation, vs. Florida Fine Fruit Company, a corporation, 93 Fla. 161, 113 Sou. 384, this Court held:
“Review by certiorari does not ordinarily extend to a consideration of the probative force of conflicting testimony, but it may include substantial errors of procedure *602that are calculated to materially injure the complaining party. In cases coming to this Court pursuant to Section 3322, Revised General Statutes of Florida, where the probative force of evidence affects the jurisdiction of the Court or where it is so manifestly contrary to the finding that is made on it as to show a palpable abuse of the power to determine the controverted facts on the evidence, or where the finding clearly indicates that the evidence was not duly considered or an erroneous rule of- law was observed in making the finding, or where there was serious misconduct involved, in the finding, and material injury to the petitioner resulted therefrom, the Court may in the exercise of its sound discretion consider such matters and take appropriate action thereon in order that the law and justice may prevail. American Ry. Exp. Co. v. Weatherford, 84 Fla. 264, 93 South Rep. 740.
It is, therefore, well settled that certiorari can not be made to perform' the function of an appeal or writ of error, and that Section 3322, Revised General Statutes of Florida, cannot be construed as extending or enlarging the appellate jurisdiction of this Court, but the function of the writ has been liberally interpreted and whether or not a cause brought here for review under the Act or otherwise presents a case cognizable for this Court to review on writ of certiorari, must depend on the showing made in the individual petition. ’ ’
It is not made to appear that the essential requirements of the law were not complied with in the Court below. Therefore, the writ heretofore issued should be quashed. It is so ordered.
Quashed.
Buford, C.J., and Ellis and Brown, J.J., concur.
Whitfield, P.J., and Terrell and Davis, J.J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Becker v. Merrell, 155 Fla. 379 (Fla. 1944)…ration of the probative force of conflicting testimony where there is competent legal evidence to sustain the judgment. Atlantic Coast Line Ry. Co. v. Florida Fine Fruit Co., 93 Fla. 161, 112 So. 66, 113 So. 384; Medlin-Peacock Buick Co. v. Broward, 101 Fla. 600, 135 So. 156; American Railway Express Co. v. Weatherford, supra. It is not necessary here for us to determine whether the scope of appellate review is broader in certiorari cases than in mandamus cases. But the writer is of the view that the [*387…
-
Hiram M. Farnham v. Caldwell, 141 Fla. 416 (Fla. 1940)…0. Review by certiorari does not ordinarily extend to a consideration, of the probative force of conflicting testimony (Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Florida Fine Fruit Co., 93 Fla. 161, 112 So. 66, 113 So. 384; Medlin-Peacock Buick Co. v. Broward, 101 Fla. 600, 135 So. 156), where there is ample, competent and illegal evidence to sustain the judgment. American Ry. Exp. Co. v. Weatherford, 84 Fla. 264, 93 So. 740. And the case will not be tried upon its merits by the Court issuing the writ. Peaden v. State…
Authorities Cited
- Am. Ry. Express Co. v. Weatherford, 84 Fla. 264 (Fla. 1922)
- Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Fla. Fine Fruit Co., 93 Fla. 161 (Fla. 1927)
- Atlas Assurance Co. v. Ferrara, 113 So. 384 (Fla. 1927)