WOLF
v.
INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CORP.
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 petition for a writ of certiorari to review an interlocutory order in a common law action, holding that such review is only granted in exceptional cases where there's a clear departure from the essential requirements of law and no adequate remedy by appeal after final judgment.
No, the Florida Supreme Court will not grant a writ of certiorari to review an interlocutory order in a common law action unless it is clearly apparent that there has been a departure from the essential requirements of the law AND the petitioner does not have a full, adequate, and complete remedy by appeal after final judgment.
“It is only in a case wherein it is made clearly apparent that there has been a departure from the essential requirements of the law and that the Petitioner does not have a full, adequate and complete remedy by appeal after final judgment that we will consider granting a writ of certiorari to review an interlocutory order entered in a common law action.”
This quote establishes the strict criteria the court uses for granting certiorari to review interlocutory orders in common law actions.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe petitioner sought a writ of certiorari from the Florida Supreme Court to review an interlocutory order issued by a Circuit Court in a common law a…
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 Adequate Remedy At Law cases and more on FLexlaw
HOBSON, Justice.
Petitioner attempts to persuade this Court to issue a writ of certiorari and review an interlocutory order of the Circuit Court in a common law action. We have repeatedly denied such applications, although on rare occasions, notably in the case of Kilgore v. Bird, 149 Fla. 570, 6 So. 2d 541, we have extended what may be termed “special dispensation” and granted them.
It is only in a case wherein it is made clearly apparent that there has been a departure from the essential requirements of the law and that the Petitioner does not have a full, adequate and complete remedy by appeal after final judgment that we will consider granting a writ of certiorari to review an interlocutory order entered in a common law action. In no other situation would we feel justified in granting a petition for such a writ, our opinion at least suggestively in Kilgore v. Bird, supra, to the contrary notwithstanding.
This Court would be less than frank if it did not say to counsel for petitioner, as it is recorded in Acts 26:28 King Agrippa said unto the Apostle Paul, “Almost thou persuadest me. * * *” However, although in this case there may have been a departure from the essential requirements of the law, a point which we do not now decide, we are not convinced that petitioner will not after final judgment have an adequate remedy by appeal. See Kuharske v. Lake County Citrus Sales, Inc., Fla., 61 So. 2d 495.
The petition for writ of certiorari is hereby denied.
SEBRING, C. J., and TERRELL and THOMAS, JJ., concur.
TERRELL, Justice
(concurring).
I feel impelled to agree to this opinion though I expressed contrary view in Patton v. Daoud, 152 Fla. 448, 12 So. 2d 299. I have not changed this view.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
Shell v. State Rd. Dep't of Fla., 135 So. 2d 857 (Fla. 1961)…n law causes where it clearly appeared that the complaining party would be without a full, adequate and complete remedy by an appeal after final judgment. Kilgore v. Bird, 1942, 149 Fla. 570, 6 So. 2d 541; Wolf v. Industrial Supply Corp., Fla. 1952, 62 So. 2d 30; Brooks v. Owens, Fla. 1957, 97 So. 2d 693. I think that the district courts have the same power to issue writs of certiorari in cases such as this as we did prior to July 1, 1957. The majority opinion recognizes this fact for it says: “ * * * Ho…1 / 2
-
Girten v. Bouvier, 155 So. 2d 745 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)…may reasonably cause material injury throughout the subsequent proceedings for which the remedy by appeal will be inadequate, will the appellate court exercise its discretionary power to issue the writ. See Wolf v. Industrial Supply Corp., Fla.1952, 62 So. 2d 30; Kauffman v. King, Fla.1956, 89 So. 2d 24; Taylor v. Board of Public Instruction of Duval County, Fla.App.1961, 131 So. 2d 504. Where the remedy of appeal exists, this right ordinarily serves as a sufficient impediment to the obtaining of review by…
-
Slatcoff v. Dezen, 72 So. 2d 800 (Fla. 1954)…ee be discharged from the cause, as it was, then assuredly Lucille Slatcoff can “take nothing by her said writ of garnishment.” Moreover, the test of a final judgment is whether the judicial labor is at an end. Wolf v. Industrial Supply Corp., Fla., 62 So. 2d 30; Wolf v. Cleveland Electric Co., Inc., Fla., 58 So. 2d 153; Foley v. State, Fla., 50 So. 2d 179, 186. Certainly no judicial labor remains for the circuit court to perform in connection with the garnishment proceedings. [*802] We have not neglected t…
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Patten v. Daoud, 152 Fla. 448 (Fla. 1943)