OTIS G. NATION
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
Otis G. Nation was convicted of operating as an emigrant agent without a license under Florida law. Nation appealed to the Circuit Court which affirmed, then petitioned the Florida Supreme Court for certiorari review, arguing the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction or violated essential legal requirements.
The certiorari petition must be quashed because the trial court did not exceed its jurisdiction and proceeded in accordance with the essential requirements of law. There was ample competent and legal evidence to support both the trial court's judgment and the Circuit Court's affirmation.
“The common law writ of certiorari issues, not to serve the purpose of an appeal, or to give an aggrieved party a second appeal, but to cause the record of an inferior court to be brought up in order that a superior court may determine from the face of the record whether the inferior court has exceeded its jurisdiction or has not proceeded in accordance with the essential requirements of law.”
Establishes the limited scope and function of certiorari review under common law
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOtis G. Nation was tried and convicted in the Criminal Court of Record of Orange County for doing the business of an emigrant agent in Florida without…
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 Scope Of Certiorari Review cases and more on FLexlaw
Otis G. Nation was tried and convicted in the Criminal Court of Record of Orange County on a charge of doing the business of an emigrant agent in the State of Florida without having first obtained a license therefor, contrary to Chapter 22068, Laws of Florda, 1943. He appealed to the Circuit Court of Orange County from the judgment rendered. The Circuit Court of Orange County affirmed the judgment. Nation then applied to this Court for a writ of certiorari to review the proceedings below and writ of certiorari was granted. The record of the procedings in the trial court is now before us for consideration.
The common law writ of certiorari issues, not to serve the purpose of an appeal, or to give an aggrieved party a second appeal, but to cause the record of an inferior court to be brought up in order that a superior court may determine from the face of the record whether the inferior court has exceeded its jurisdiction or has not proceeded in accordance with the essential requirements of law. Des Rocher & Watkins Towing Co. v. Third National Bank, 106 Fla. 466, 143 So. 768; Farnham v. Caldwell, 141 Fla. 416, 193 So. 286. The writ being thus limited in function, the subject matter of a suit that has been tried in a court of competent jurisdiction and thereafter reviewed in an appropriate appellate tribunal will not be reinvestigated, tried and determined upon the merits generally when brought here by certiorari. Jacksonville American Publishing Co. v. Jacksonville Paper Co., 143 Fla. 835, 197 So. 672.
All of the matters raised by petitioner and brought here by the record were duly presented to the circuit court on appeal. There was ample competent and legal evidence to support the judgment of the trial court and to sustain the judgment of affirmance rendered by the circuit court on appeal. It does not appear from the face of the record that the trial court has exceeded its jurisdiction or has not pro*860eeeded in accordance with the essential requirements of law. •The,common law writ of certiorari heretofore issued by this Court must therefore be quashed.
It is so ordered.
CHAPMAN, C. J., BROWN and THOMAS,. JJ., concur.
concurring:
The scope of review under common law certiorari, and the meaning of the phrase “has not proceeded in accordance with the essential requirements of the law,” are dealt with in Miami Poultry & Egg Co. v. City Ice & Fuel Co., 126 Fla. 563, 172 So. 82; Robinson v. City of Miami, 138 Fla. 697, 190 So. 35, and Wolkowsky v. Goodkind, 153 Fla. 267, 14 So. (2nd) 398.
BROWN, J.,
concurring:
The scope of review under common law certiorari, and the meaning of the phrase “has not proceeded in accordance with the essential requirements of the law,” are dealt with in Miami Poultry & Egg Co. v. City Ice & Fuel Co., 126 Fla. 563, 172 So. 82; Robinson v. City of Miami, 138 Fla. 697, 190 So. 35, and Wolkowsky v. Goodkind, 153 Fla. 267, 14 So. (2nd) 398.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hilkmeyer v. Latin Am. AIR Cargo Expediters, Inc., 94 So. 2d 821 (Fla. 1957)…iff has made no attempt to recover from the ultimate purchaser. This case must be examined and disposed of under rules developed by the Court to govern “common law” certiorari.2 [*824] On this subject we said in Nation v. State, 1945, 155 Fla. 858, 22 So. 2d 219: “The common-law writ of certiorari issues, not to serve the purpose of an appeal, or to give an aggrieved party a second appeal, but to cause the record of an inferior court to be brought up in order that a superior court may determine from the fa…
-
Townsend v. State, 97 So. 2d 712 (Fla. 1st DCA 1957)…her & Watkins Towing Co. v. Third Nat. Bank of Miami, Fla., 106 Fla. 466, 143 So. 768; Vanderpool v. Spruell, 104 Fla. 347, 139 So. 892. Certiorari cannot be made to serve the purpose of ordinary appellate proceedings. Nation v. State, 155 Fla. 858, 22 So. 2d 219; Wolkowsky v. Goodkind, 153 Fla. 267, 14 So. 2d 398; Robinson v. City of Miami, 138 Fla. 696, 190 So. 35; Miami Poultry & Egg Co. v. City Ice & Fuel Co., 126 Fla. 563, 172 So. 82; Edwards v. Knight, 100 Fla. 1704, 132 So. 459; Brinson v. Tharin, 99…
-
Allstate van Lines Corp. v. Imogene Palmerio and Anthony Palmerio, 334 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)…this court is substantially identical to the appellant’s brief it filed in the circuit court. It is therefore clear that petitioner is seeking to take a second appeal from the county court judgment. This it may not do. Nation v. State, 155 Fla. 858, 22 So. 2d 219 (1945). Accordingly, the petition for writ of certiorari is hereby dismissed. MAGER, DOWNEY and ALDERMAN, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Jacksonville Am. Publ'g Co. v. Jacksonville Paper Co., 143 Fla. 835 (Fla. 1940)
- Wolkowsky v. Goodkind, 153 Fla. 267 (Fla. 1943)
- Des Rocher & Watkins Towing Co. v. Third Nat'l Bank of Miami, 106 Fla. 466 (Fla. 1932)
- Robinson v. City of Miami, 138 Fla. 696 (Fla. 1939)
- Miami Poultry & Egg Co. v. The City Ice & Fuel Co., 126 Fla. 563 (Fla. 1936)
- State ex rel. Beatrice Newport v. Parks, 143 Fla. 901 (Fla. 1940)
- Hiram M. Farnham v. Caldwell, 141 Fla. 416 (Fla. 1940)