JACK'S FRUIT COMPANY, NOT INC., PETITIONER,
v.
GROWERS MARKETING SERVICE, INC., ET AL., 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.
Florida Supreme Court dismissed Jack's Fruit Company's petition for mandamus, holding that the District Court of Appeal had jurisdiction under Fla. Stat. § 120.31 to review the agency order dispute.
The District Court of Appeal had jurisdiction pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 120.31 to hear and decide the merits of the dispute between Jack's Fruit Company and Growers Marketing Service.
[1] A district court of appeal has jurisdiction under Fla. …
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJack's Fruit Company challenged the jurisdiction of the District Court of Appeal to hear a dispute with Growers Marketing Service regarding an agency …
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 Courts cases and more on FLexlaw
Jack’s Fruit Company has filed with this Court its petition 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 adequately set out in the opinion of the District Court, and need not be repeated here. Now, with the return of Growers Marketing Service before us as well as the relevant portions of the record, and briefs of both parties, it is our opinion that the District Court did indeed have jurisdiction, pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 120.31, F.S.A. (providing for review of agency orders by certiorari to the ap*172propriate district court) to hear and decide the merits of the dispute.
The remaining issues raised by relator have been considered and found to be without merit.
Accordingly, the rule nisi heretofore issued is discharged and the petition is dismissed.
It is so ordered.
ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jack's Fruit Co. v. Growers Mktg. Serv., Inc., 488 F.2d 493 (5th Cir. 1973)…e Supreme Court of Florida in a petition for mandamus or prohibition to vacate and stay enforcement of the mandate of the District Court of Appeal. The Florida high court rejected those arguments. Jack’s Fruit Co. v. Growers Marketing Service, Inc., 261 So. 2d 171 (Fla.1972). Jack’s then brought suit in federal court to bar enforcement of the state court judgment, once again arguing lack of jurisdiction and notice. In civil litigation, except for habeas corpus proceedings, a federal district court has no jur…
-
Goldtrap v. Doyle Conner, 529 F.2d 1297 (5th Cir. 1976)…PER CURIAM: This case, which has been much litigated in the Florida Courts, Growers Marketing Service, Inc. v. Conner, Fla.Dist.Ct.App., 1971, 249 So. 2d 486; Jack’s Fruit Co. v. Growers Marketing Service, Inc., Fla., 1972, 261 So. 2d 171, makes its second appearance in this Court, Jack’s Fruit Company v. Growers Marketing Service, Inc., 5 Cir., 1973, 488 F. 2d 493. The arguments conclusively show that the District Court had no jurisdiction in this case and accordingly the judgment e…
Authorities Cited
- Growers Mktg. Serv., Inc. v. Doyle Conner, 249 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971)