DADE REALTY CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION,
v.
HARRY SCHOENTHAL, AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND THE JUDGES THEREOF
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 granted a writ of prohibition to prevent a circuit court from compelling a county judge to vacate a judgment. The court found that an appeal was an adequate remedy and mandamus was inappropriate.
Yes, the Circuit Court should be prohibited from compelling the County Judge to vacate the judgment by mandamus because an appeal is an adequate remedy.
“In the latter case, we prohibited the Circuit Court of Dade County from reviewing the judgment of the County Judge in a distress for rent proceeding.”
Establishes the context of the companion case and the nature of the relief sought.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDade Realty Corporation sought a writ of prohibition against the Circuit Court of Dade County. The circuit court was being asked to order the County J…
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 Writ Of Prohibition cases and more on FLexlaw
This is a companion case to Dade Realty Corporation v. Esther Schoenthal, et al., decided this date. In the latter case, we prohibited the Circuit Court of Dade County from reviewing the judgment of the County Judge in a distress for rent proceeding. In the case at bar, we are asked to prohibit the Circuit Court of Dade County from requiring the County Judge by mandamus to vacate the same judgment.
The record discloses that the ultimate question involved in both cases is identical, that review by appeal is adequate and that there is no basis shown for mandamus so the writ of prohibition is granted on authority of Dade Realty Corporation v. Esther Schoenthal, et al., decided this date.
BÚFORD, CHAPMAN and ADAMS, JJ., concur.
*86BROWN, C. J., and THOMAS, J., dissent.
WHITFIELD, J., not participating.
dissenting:
I think this case, in mandamus, is not analogous to the one referred to as its companion and that there is no justification for interference on the part of this Court by writ of prohibition.
BROWN, C. J., concurs.
THOMAS, J.,
dissenting:
I think this case, in mandamus, is not analogous to the one referred to as its companion and that there is no justification for interference on the part of this Court by writ of prohibition.
BROWN, C. J., concurs.