EX PARTE HILLIARD J. FINCH
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 writ of error to review a habeas corpus judgment is discretionary and requires a petition detailing the case, not just a motion. This clarifies the procedural requirements for seeking such a writ.
The writ of error is discretionary and not issued as a matter of course. A petition detailing the case and a certified copy of the judgment are required to properly move for the writ.
“Whether a writ of error shall issue from this court to bring up the record of a judgment in a case of habeas corpus is a matter of discretion with the court.”
Establishes the discretionary nature of the writ.
Previewing 1 of 4 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe court considered a motion for a writ of error to review a judgment in a habeas corpus case. The motion was made ex parte without a detailed statem…
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 Ex Parte Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
delivered the opinion of the court.
Whether a writ of error shall issue from this court to bring up the record of a judgment in a case of habeas corpus is a matter of discretion with the court. It does not issue as a matter of course, either from the court or the clerk’s office. This discretion cannot be intelligently exercised upon the mere motion of the party seeking the writ without any statement of the case which he proposes to present. A petition setting forth the nature of the case, accompanied by a certified copy of the record of the judgment, is the proper basis of a motion in this court for the writ. This motion is an ese parte proceeding, and unless so directed by the court, there is no necessity id)'' notice to the adverse party. This *633was the practice adopted in the case of ex parte Edwards, 11 Fla., 174. An examination of the papers will shoyv'that. that case was presented upon petition.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. MRS. J. M. (corinne) Brister, 158 Fla. 662 (Fla. 1947)…here is no order allowing this appeal from a judgment in habeas corpus as required by Section 79.11, Fla. Stat. 1941, F.S.A., therefore we are without jurisdiction to review the judgment arid the appeal is dismissed upon authority of Ex parte Finch, 15 Fla. 630; Wright et al. v. State, 32 Fla. 472, 14 So. 43; State ex rel Wilson v. Quigg, 154 Fla. 348, 17 So. 2d. 697. Appeal dismissed. THOMAS, C.J., BUFORD and ADAMS, JJ., and HARRY N. SANDLER, Associate Justice, concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Ex parte Edwards, 11 Fla. 174 (Fla. 1867)