BARTOW GROWERS PROCESSING CORP.
v.
FLORIDA GROWERS PROCESSING COOPERATIVE ET AL.
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 dismissed a petition for interlocutory certiorari, holding that a final order of dismissal against certain defendants is only reviewable by appeal, not certiorari. The court clarified that while an improvidently filed appeal can be treated as a petition for certiorari, the reverse is not permissible.
The court held that a final order of dismissal as to specific defendants is reviewable only by appeal. Therefore, the petition for interlocutory certiorari was dismissed.
“The order sought to be reviewed was a final order reviewable only by appeal.”
Establishes the nature of the order and the correct appellate procedure.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBartow Growers Processing Corporation sued several defendants. All defendants except one filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state …
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 Interlocutory Certiorari cases and more on FLexlaw
SEBRING, Justice.
Bartow Growers Processing Corporation brought suit for an accounting, and other relief, against Florida Growers Processing Cooperative, Alcoma Association, Inc., W. H. Clark Fruit Company, Clearwater Growers Association,, Domino Citrus Association, Great Southern Citrus Association, Lake Region Citrus Association and Palm Harbor Citrus Growers Association. All of the defendants except the Florida Growers Processing Cooperative filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it did not state a cause of action upon which relief could be granted as to them. The motion-'to dismiss was granted and the cause was dismissed as against said defendants. Subseqúently, the plaintiff filed its petition for interlocutory certiorari in this Court to review the order of dismissal. The said defendants moved to, dismiss the, certiorari proceeding oil the ground that appeal was. the only method by which this Court could acquire jurisdiction to review the order of dismissal.
We find that the motion ,to dismiss the certiorari proceeding is well founded. The-order sought to be reviewed was a final order reviewable only by appeal. In the case of Dustin v. Latzko, 155 Fla. 824, 21 So. 2d 904, it was pointed out that an “order * * * dismissing bill of complaint as to certain named defendants was a final judgment-as to such defendants reviewable only by appeal * * See also Alderman v. Puritan Dairy, 145 Fla. 292, 199 So. 44; Spivey v. Huss, 147 Fla. 527, 3 So. 2d 127. While section 59.45, Florida Statutes 1951, F.S.A., provides that an appeal improvidently taken may “be regarded and acted on as a petition for certiorari duly presented”, it does not provide that a petition for certiorari improvidently filed may fee treated as a notice of appeal, where appeal is the proper remedy, and in our opinion we have no power to treat the petition for certiorari, filed in this cause as an appeal.
The motion to dismiss the certiorari proceeding should be granted.
It is so ordered.
ROBERTS, C. J., and TERRELL and MATHEWS, JJ-, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (15 total)
-
Fort v. Anne Burton Fort, 104 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958)…smissed. STURGIS, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD, K, J., concur. . See: Codomo v. Shaw, Fla.1958, 99 So. 2d 849; Pullman Co. v. Fleishel, Fla.App.1958, 101 So. 2d 188. . Bartow Growers Processing Corp. v. Florida Growers Processing Co-op., Fla. 1954, 71 So. 2d 165; Jones v. Johnson, Fla.App.1957, 98 So. 2d 506.…
-
Shute v. Keystone State Bank & Mrs. Edward J. Hutson, 159 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963)…appeal may be treated as a petition for certiorari, a petition for certiorari ta review an order reviewable only by-appeal can not be treated as an appeal-See Bartow Growers Processing Corporation v. Florida Growers Processing Cooperative, Fla.1954, 71 So. 2d 165; Jones et al. v. Johnson et al., Fla.App.1957, 98 So. 2d 506; F.S. § 59.45, F.SA.” Since the statute 5 authorizing review of interlocutory orders or decrees in equity by proceedings in the nature of certiorari was superseded by the adoption of Flor…
-
Mapoles v. Wilson, 122 So. 2d 249 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960)…n appeal improvidently taken to be treated as a petition for writ of certiorari but. does not authorize certiorari improvidently applied for to be treated as an appeal. Bartow Growers Processing Corp. v. Florida Growers Processing Co-op., Fla. 1954, 71 So. 2d 165. Although the decision in the Fort case involved a post-decretal order, the-same principles of law are applicable where-certiorari is invoked to review an interlocutory order in an action at common law relating to venue as here involved. The instan…
Previewing 3 of 15 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Mrs. J. D. Alderman v. Puritan Dairy, Inc., 145 Fla. 292 (Fla. 1940)
- Dustin v. Latzko, 155 Fla. 824 (Fla. 1945)
- Spivey v. Huss, 147 Fla. 527 (Fla. 1941)
- Bell v. First Nat'l Bank of Bradenton & G. B. Knowles, 147 Fla. 528 (Fla. 1941)
- Bartow Growers Processing Corp. v. Fla. Growers Processing Coop., 71 So. 2d 166 (Fla. 1954)