FRED O. DICKINSON, JR., AS COMPTROLLER AND COMMISSIONER OF BANKING OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
JUDGES OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST DISTRICT, OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court held that a District Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction to review via certiorari the Comptroller's quasi-executive order approving a savings and loan branch office application, because certiorari review under Florida law is available only for quasi-judicial orders, not quasi-executive or quasi-legislative orders.
The District Court of Appeal lacks jurisdiction to review the Comptroller's quasi-executive order by certiorari. Certiorari review under Florida law is limited to quasi-judicial orders entered by agencies in the exercise of judicial or quasi-judicial authority, not quasi-executive or quasi-legislative orders.
[1] A writ of prohibition may issue to prevent a lower court from exceeding its jurisdiction.
[2] Certiorari is an appropriate method for reviewing quasi-judicial orders of an agency.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“The order entered by the Comptroller approving Franklin's application for a branch office was rendered in the performance of a quasi-executive or quasi-legislative function.”
Establishes the nature of the order at issue and grounds for lack of certiorari jurisdiction
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Comptroller approved Franklin Savings and Loan Association's application for a branch office on March 23, 1973. University Federal Savings and Loa…
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 Quasi-Judicial Body cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an original proceeding in .prohibition seeking'to prohibit the District Court of Appeal, First District from proceeding any further in the consideration of a peti-' tion for writ of certiorari filed by University Federal Savings and Loan Association with the First District Court of Appeal to review the order of the Comptroller approving the application of Franklin Savings and Loan Association for a branch office.
Seeking review of the order ,-of the Comptroller approving Franklin’s application on March 23, 1973, University Federal Savings and Loan Association filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the District Court. In response, the petitioner-Comptroller filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that, since the order to be reviewed was a quasi-executive order, review by certiorari in the District Court of Appeal was not the appropriate method of review.
A Rule Nisi was issued by this Court and return has been filed. This Court has heard oral argument, examined the record and considered the briefs.
The order entered by the Comptroller approving Franklin’s application for a branch office was rendered in the performance of a quasi-executive or quasi-legislative func*169tion. Washington Federal Savings and Loan Association v. Dickinson, 282 So.2d 167 (Fla.1973); University Federal Savings and Loan Association of Coral Gables v. Dickinson, 269 So.2d 2 (Fla.1972). See also Bay National Bank and Trust Company v. Dickinson, 229 So.2d 302 (Fla.App.1969). Respondent is without authority to review the quasi-executive order of the Comptroller in this cause by an original proceeding in certiorari. Bay National Bank and Trust Company v. Dickinson, supra. In Laundry Public Health Committee of Florida v. Board of Business Regulation, 235 So.2d 346 (Fla.App.1970), the court stated,
“The principal ground for dismissing the certiorari proceeding to review the respondents’ ‘order’ is that said ‘order’ is not an ‘order’ within the purview of Section 120.31(1), Florida Statutes, F.S. A., which provides for certiorari review of ‘ * * * the final orders of an agency entered in any agency proceeding, or in the exercise of any judicial or quasi-judicial authority, * * *.’ We agree. In Bay National Bank and Trust Company v. Dickinson, 229 So.2d 302 (Fla.App.1969), this court rendered its opinion distinguishing various ‘orders,’ rules, and rulings entered by administrative agencies and held that only those ‘orders’ which were quasi-judicial in nature were susceptible of review by certiorari under the intendment of Section 120.31(1), Florida Statutes, F.S.A.”
Accordingly, respondent is without jurisdiction to proceed further in the consideration of the petition for writ of certiorari, and it was error to deny petitioner’s motion to dismiss the appeal.
For the foregoing reasons, let the writ of prohibition issue.
It is so ordered.
CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, ADKINS, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McDONALD v. Dep't OF Banking & Fin., 346 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)…there was no administrative or judicial remedy either for the applicant whose application was denied or for any protestant. Bay Nat’l, 229 So. 2d at 304; National Bank of Tampa, 175 So. 2d at 550-51; Dickinson v. Judges of District Court of Appeal, 282 So. 2d 168 (Fla.1973). The APA does not compromise the Department’s ultimate authority over banking applications. Nor does it strip the Comptroller, a constitutional officer who is head of the Department, of the discretion in such matters which is finally his…
-
State of Fla. ex rel. Dep't OF Gen. Servs. v. Willis, 344 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)…istrict court of appeal, Section 120.31, but only by action for an injunction or other relief in a circuit court. Bay Nat’l Bank and Trust Co. v. Dickinson, 229 So. 2d 302, 306 (Fla.1st DCA 1969); Dickinson v. Judges of the District Court of Appeal, 282 So. 2d 168, 169 (Fla.1973); Bloomfield v. Mayo, 119 So. 2d 417 (Fla.1st DCA 1960); DeGroot v. Sheffield, 95 So. 2d 912 (Fla.1957); West Flagler Amusement Co., Inc. v. State Racing Comm’n, 122 Fla. 222, 165 So. 64 (1935). See also Levinson, supra n.3, at 628; N…
-
The Sch. Bd. OF Leon Cnty. v. Mitchell, 346 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)…rocedure laws, are now brought under the minimum fairness provisions of the proposed act. To this extent the act is intended to overrule cases making the distinction, such as Bay National Bank and Dickinson v. Judges of the District Court of Appeal, 282 So. 2d 168 (Fla. Sup.Ct. 1973).”10 This Court acknowledged the thrust of the 1974 revision as applied to review of agency action in Broward County v. Administration Commission, 321 So. 2d 605 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975), wherein we, after reviewing the historical bac…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- BAY Nat'l Bank & Tr. Co. v. Dickinson, 229 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969)
- The Laundry Pub. Health Comm. OF Fla. v. Bd. OF Bus. Reg. of the State of Fla., 235 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970)
- Univ. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n OF Coral Gables v. The Honorable Fred O. Dickinson, Jr., 269 So. 2d 2 (Fla. 1972)
- Wash. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n of Miami Beach v. Dickinson, 282 So. 2d 167 (Fla. 1973)