STATE OF FLORIDA, EX REL. R. D. BUDD AND E. L. S. BUDD, HIS WIFE,
v.
HON. ROSS WILLIAMS, CIRCUIT JUDGE, ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA, DADE COUNTY, AND J. Y. GOOCH CO., INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND ROBERT L. WEED, ARCHITECT, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION
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 prohibition, holding that a circuit court lacked jurisdiction to alter a final decree that had already been affirmed by the Supreme Court. The circuit court could not modify its own affirmed decree without prior authorization from the Supreme Court.
No, the circuit court did not have jurisdiction to alter or change the final decree after it was affirmed by the Florida Supreme Court. Once affirmed, the decree became the judgment of the Supreme Court.
“When the decree of the circuit court was affirmed by this Court, such decree was merged and became the judgment and decree of this Court.”
Establishes that an affirmed decree becomes the judgment of the appellate court.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Circuit Judge entered an order attempting to correct a final decree that had previously been affirmed by the Florida Supreme Court. The petitioner…
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.
This cause is before us on demurrer to petition for prohibition on which rule nisi heretofore issued.
It is admitted by demurrer that Respondent Circuit Judge entered an order purporting to correct a final decree which had theretofore been affirmed by this Court (See Budd, et al., v. Gooch, 151 Fla. 262, 9 So. (2nd) 633).
*190When the decree of the circuit court was affirmed by this Court, such decree was merged and became the judgment and decree of this Court. Bloxham v. Fla. Cent. etc. R. Co., 39 Fla. 243, 22 So. 697; Palm Beach Estates v. Croker, 106 Fla. 617, 143 So. 792, 794. After affirmance of the decree by this Court the circuit court was without jurisdiction to alter or change the decree as so affirmed without first having authority from this Court to so act.
The demurrer is overruled and answer filed is held to be insufficient. Prohibition absolute will be awarded, without prejudice, however, to the filing of petition in this Court for leave to the circuit court to consider and act upon petition to amend the final decree so as to make it conform to the record and a just determination of the rights of the parties.
So ordered.
BUFORD, C. J„ TERRELL, BROWN, CHAPMAN and ADAMS, JJ., concur.
THOMAS and SEBRING, JJ., not participating.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Milton v. R.C. Keith, 503 So. 2d 1312 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…We cannot agree. It is well established in Florida that an order, judgment or decree of a trial court, when affirmed by an appellate court, becomes the order, judgment or decree of the appellate court. State ex rel. Budd v. Williams, 152 Fla. 189, 11 So. 2d 341 (Fla.1943) (where circuit court decree was affirmed by the supreme court, circuit court was without jurisdiction to alter the decree without first having authority from the supreme court to do so); Acme Specialty Corp. v. City of Miami, 292 So. 2d 3…
-
Eisenburg v. Cornblum, 156 Fla. 702 (Fla. 1945)…e court below was without authority to enter the challenged order without first having obtained the permission of this court to so change, alter, or modify its judgment. See Baskin v. Klemm, 118 Fla. 657, 160 So. 509; State ex rel. Budd v. Williams, 152 Fla. 189, 11 So. (2nd) 341; Wyman v. Barrett, 153 Fla. 860, 16 So. (2nd) 112. The petition for certiorari is granted and the challenged order is quashed. [*704] CHAPMAN, C.J., TERRELL, BUFORD and SEBRING, JJ., concur.…
-
State of Fla. ex rel. Samuel H. Tobin & Joseph Norwood v. Holt, 117 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)…516; Baskin v. Klemm, 118 Fla. 657, 160 So. 509; Vining v. American Bakeries Co., 121 Fla. 122, 163 So. 519; State ex rel. Gibbs v. Circuit Court of Eleventh Judicial Circuit, 140 Fla. 378, 191 So. 699; State ex rel. Budd v. Williams, 152 Fla. 189, 11 So. 2d 341; Eisenburg v. Cornblum, 156 Fla. 702, 24 So. 2d 236; Berger v. Leposky, Fla.1958, 103 So. 2d 628, 631. As early as 1897 in the case of Bloxham v. Florida Cent. & P. R. Co., supra (22 So. at page 705), the Supreme Court of Florida stated this propos…
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
- Palm Beach Ests. v. Bula E. Croker, 106 Fla. 617 (Fla. 1932)
- Bloxham v. The Fla. Cent. & Peninsular R.R. Co., 39 Fla. 243 (Fla. 1897)
- Budd v. J. Y. Gooch Co., Inc, 151 Fla. 262 (Fla. 1942)