Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

98 So. 2d 506

Jones v. Johnson

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided November 22, 1957

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1957-11-22

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““Appeals from interlocutory orders or decrees in equity, orders or decrees entered after final decree, and orders at common law relating to venue or jurisdiction over the person, may be prosecuted in accordance with this rule; pro vided that nothing contained in this rule shall preclude the review of such orders and decrees on appeal from the final decree in the cause.””

quoted by 2 later decisions, including Fort v. Fort, 112 So. 2d 589 - Pavey v. Pavey

“"Except where petitions for certiorari are permitted by law or by these rules, all appellate review shall be by appeal."”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including Shute v. Keystone State Bank, 115 So. 2d 1 - Engel v. City of North Miami

Relies on 71 So. 2d 165 - Bartow Growers Proc. Corp. v. Florida Gr. Proc. Coop.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1957-11-22

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently January 1974

12 state decisions

60195719601970decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Mack JONES, Alvin Gorton, Herman Hastings, Dawson McDaniel, Wilson Pigott, as and constituting the Board of County Commissioners of Lee County, Florida, and Archie Odom and Frank Pavese, Petitioners,
v.
Alice JOHNSON et al., Respondents.

No. 186.

¶1District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

November 22, 1957.

¶2W.H. Carmine, Jr., Fort Myers, for petitioners.

¶3William Lamar Rose, Fort Myers, for respondents.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5The petition herein, for writ of certiorari, requests this court to review an order of the Judge of the Twelfth Circuit, which denied a motion of the petitioners, defendants below, to dismiss the second amended complaint of the respondents, plaintiffs below.

¶6The respondents, in their brief, submitted the following question:

"Is a Petition for Writ of Certiorari the Correct Procedure for Obtaining Relief from an Adverse Interlocutory Order in Equity by a Lower Court under the Florida Appellate Rules which Became Effective July 1, 1957?"

¶7Florida Appellate Rules, which became effective July 1, 1957, Rule 3.1, provides:

"Except where petitions for certiorari are permitted by law or by these rules, all appellate review shall be by appeal."

¶8Rule 4.2 "Interlocutory Appeals", paragraph (a), provides:

"Appeals from interlocutory orders or decrees in equity, orders or decrees entered after final decree, and orders at common law relating to venue or jurisdiction over the person, may be prosecuted in accordance with this rule; provided that nothing contained in this rule shall preclude the review of such orders and decrees on appeal from the final decree in the cause."

¶9It will be seen from the two above rules that interlocutory appeals must now be prosecuted by appeal and not by a petition for certiorari.

¶10The Supreme Court of Florida, in the case of Bartow Growers Processing Corporation v. Florida Growers Processing Cooperative, Fla. 1954, 71 So.2d 165 held:

"Despite statute providing that an appeal improvidently taken may be *507 treated as a petition for certiorari, petition for certiorari which was filed to review an order which was reviewable only by appeal could not be treated as an appeal."

¶11Since the order here involved should have been brought to us for review by an interlocutory appeal instead of by petition for writ of certiorari, we must deny such petition.

¶12Petition denied.

¶13KANNER, C.J., ALLEN, J., and STEPHENSON, Associate Judge, concur.

/98/so2d/506 · .json · Public domain