DAVID L. MCCAIN, JUSTICE, FLORIDA SUPREME COURT, PETITIONER,
v.
SELECT COMMITTEE ON IMPEACHMENT, FLORIDA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, RESPONDENT
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse All Writs Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The members of this panel have each individually reviewed the petition, brief, and accompanying documents filed herein.
A petition filed under the all writs jurisdiction requires the court in which it is filed to initially determine if the petition on its face sets forth a claim within the jurisdiction and responsibility of the court. We unanimously agree that under the circumstances of this case we do not have jurisdiction to hear this cause.
The petition is dismissed.
It is so ordered.
OVERTON, Acting C. J., ENGLAND, J., and TYRIE A. BOYER, Chief Judge-Elect, First District Court of Appeal; BEN C. WILLIS, Chief Judge, Second Judicial Circuit; JAMES T. NELSON, Chief Judge, Seventh Judicial Circuit; R. L. McCRARY, Jr., Chief Judge, Fourteenth Judicial Circuit; and D. C. SMITH, Chief Judge, Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Schreiber, 561 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)…on filed under the “all writs” clause requires the court in which it is filed to initially determine if the petition, on its face, sets forth a claim within the jurisdiction and responsibility of the court. McCain v. Select Committee On Impeachment, 313 So. 2d 722 (Fla.1975). Here, the public defender’s ore tenus motion, for a judicial inquiry into the conditions and quality of treatment at the forensic service unit at SFSH, did not, on its face, set forth a claim within the jurisdiction of the lower court.…
-
Jarrell v. Huffman, 341 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)…), the trial court entered an order setting aside the order previously entered awarding the new trial. An order granting a new trial confers a substantive right and the order is not interlocutory in nature. Hoffman v. Jackson’s Minit Markets, Inc., 313 So. 2d 722 (Fla.1975). Therefore, unlike interlocutory orders it does not remain subject to modification. Cf. Sterling Drug, Inc. v. Wright, 307 So. 2d 494 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975). In fact, in the absence of fraud or clerical error, once the motion for a new trial…
-
Mendelson v. Lavine Mendelson, 341 So. 2d 811 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)…the first appeal by the plaintiff or until, as has now occurred, a final judgment was entered against him. . Clement v. Aztec Sales, Inc., supra, n. 1; Wackenhut Corp. v. Judges, 297 So. 2d 300 (Fla.1974); Hoffman v. Jackson’s Minit Markets, Inc., 313 So. 2d 722 (Fla.1975); Bowen v. Willard, supra, n. 2. . We attach no significance whatever to the facts that the notice of appeal was filed before the ten day remittitur period had expired and that the remittitur itself was filed before the Circuit Court had…