THE FLORIDA NATIONAL BANK OF JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA, A NATIONAL BANKING CORPORATION ORGANIZED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF HOUSTON NAPOLEON GARDNER, DECEASED,
v.
R. HAL GARDNER
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 denied a certificate of questions from a lower court because the question presented was too broad and did not comply with the court's rules for certified questions. The court emphasized that certified questions must be definite, concise, and answerable without regard to other issues.
No, the question as stated cannot be properly certified because it is not a definite and concise proposition of law answerable without regard to other issues, as required by Rule 38.
“Only questions or propositions of law that can be answered without regard to other issues may be so certified and they must be definitely and concisely stated.”
This quote states the requirement from Rule 38 for certified questions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Florida National Bank, as administrator of an estate, filed a bill in equity. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss. The trial judge then certif…
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 Certified Question cases and more on FLexlaw
Hon. T. Frank Hobson as Judge of the Circuit Court for the Sixth Judicial Circuit h'as filed in this Court a certificate under Rule 38, in a case pending in his court, entitled as above. The certificate gives a condensed summary of the allegations of a bill in equity, consisting of about three type written pages, which bill was filed in said court and a motion to dismiss the same was filed by the defendant.
Then follows the following certified questions:
“Does this Court of equity, under the facts alleged, havt jurisdiction, or is it authorized to grant the relief prayed?” A question of this kind is not within the contemplation of Rule 38, which provides, that:
“Only questions or propositions of law that can be answered without regard to other issues may be so certified and they must be definitely and concisely stated.”
As a general rule, only single, definite and distinct questions or propositions of law can be certified to this Court.
It is entirely proper, and indeed required by the rule, that the certificate shall also contain the style of the case, and a “statement of facts” showing the nature of the cause *638and the circumstances out of which the questions of law arise. But the question as stated does not comply with the Rule. See. Schwob Company v. Florida Industrial Commission, just published in the Advance Sheets of the Southern Reporter, 11 So. (2nd) 782.
For reasons above stated the certificate is denied.
BUFORD, C. J., THOMAS and SEBRING, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gordon v. Norris, 90 So. 2d 914 (Fla. 1956)…all of these questions on a Certificate under Rule 27, supra, would be an intrusion on the trial jurisdiction of the Circuit Court. Stanley v. Home Owners Mtg. Co., Fla.1949, 42 So. 2d 770; Florida Nat. Bank of Jacksonville v. Gardner, 152 Fla. 636, 12 So. 2d 574. For the reasons stated the Certificate is— Denied. DREW, C. J., and TERRELL and HOB-SON, JJ., concur.…
-
Giehler et ux. v. Ward, 65 So. 2d 742 (Fla. 1953)…cretion. See 3 Am.Jur., pp. 759-763. It is not the purpose of the certified question procedure to have the Supreme Court function as a Circuit Court. The matter before us is similar to Florida National Bank of Jacksonville v. Gardner, 152 Fla. 636, 12 So. 2d 574 wherein this Court refused by “certified question” to determine the sufficiency of a bill tested by a motion to dismiss. The settlement of such a question would not, as of course, be “determinative of the cause”. Jurisdiction for consideration of t…
Authorities Cited
- Schwob Co. of Fla. v. Fla. Indus. Comm'n, 152 Fla. 203 (Fla. 1942)