FRANK KNIGHT, PETITIONER,
v.
NORMAN EDWARDS, RESPONDENT
FRANK KNIGHT, PETITIONER,
NORMAN EDWARDS, RESPONDENT
276 So. 2d 499
Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (1973)
Negative Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Opinion of the Court
Petitioner was aggrieved by an interlocutory decision in a civil action such as was formally cognizable in equity and brought his petition for writ of certiorari under Rule 4.5(c), Florida Appellate Rules, 32 F.S.A. Petitioner misconceived his appellate remedy, the proper answer being an interlocutory appeal, under Rule 4.2, Florida Appellate Rules. We are not permitted to transpose and treat his petition as an appeal. Bartow Growers Processing Corp. v. Florida Growers Processing Cooperative, Fla.1954, 71 So.2d 165; Schneider v. Manheimer, Fla.App.1964, 170 So.2d 75. Sapp v. La Violette, Fla.App.1970, 242 So.2d 483. See generally Florida Civil Practice After Trial, § 17.17, et seq.
Dismissed.
REED, C. J., and WALDEN and MA-GER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Thellie S. Roper v. Roper, 336 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)…able to obtain review only where no other method of appeal is available. DeGroot v. Sheffield, 95 So. 2d 912 (Fla.1957). We have in the past held that improvidently filed petition for certiorari could not be treated as an appeal. Knight v. Edwards, 276 So. 2d 499 (4th DCA Fla. 1973). However, the Supreme Court has subsequently held that an improvidently filed petition for certiorari may be treated as an appeal. The Supreme Court referring to Article V, Section 2(a) of the Florida Constitution,1 stated: “. .…
Authorities Cited
- Bartow Growers Processing Corp. v. Fla. Growers Processing Coop., 71 So. 2d 165 (Fla. 1954)
- Hyman Schneider v. Manheimer, 170 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Arletha C. Sapp v. LaVIOLETTE, 242 So. 2d 483 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970)