Couse v. Canal Authority
| Citation | 197 So.2d 841 |
| Decision Date | 13 April 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 1-332,1-332 |
| Parties | John H. COUSE and Barnetta S. Couse, Petitioners, v. The CANAL AUTHORITY of the State of Florida, a body corporate under the laws of the State of Florida, Respondent. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
Ronald Sales and Robert M. Leite, West Palm Beach, for petitioners.
C. Ray Greene, Jr., Jacksonville, for respondent.
Petitioners seek review by certiorari of an interlocutory order entered in an eminent domain proceeding which denied their motion to dismiss the action on the grounds (1) that F.S. Section 74.051, F.S.A., authorizing the entry of an order or judgment based upon a declaration of taking is unconstitutional; (2) that the complaint is insufficient because of a failure to attach thereto as exhibits certain items of proof deemed by petitioners to be essential; and, (3) refusal of the trial court to permit petitioners to call and examine a witness for the purpose of establishing facts alleged by them to show fraud or bad faith in the institution of this action.
Since the principal point raised by the petition for certiorari challenges the correctness of the trial court's ruling that F.S. Section 74.051, F.S.A., authorizing the entry of judgment on declaration of taking, is constitutional and valid, this action was first commenced in the Supreme Court of Florida. Article V, Section 4, Florida Constitution, F.S.A., fixing the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court provides that appeals from trial courts may be taken directly to the Supreme Court, as a matter of right, from final judgments or decrees directly passing upon the validity of a state statute * * *. For reasons unexpressed in its order, the Supreme Court declined to grant the review sought by the petition filed herein, and transferred the case to this court for its consideration.
Article V, Section 5(3), Florida Constitution, provides that appeals from trial courts may be taken to the courts of appeal as a matter of right from all final judgments or decrees except those from which appeals may be taken directly to the Supreme Court or to the circuit court.
Since this court possesses no constitutional jurisdiction to review a final decree passing upon the validity of a state statute, which jurisdiction is vested exclusively in the Supreme Court, we consider and so hold that by the same token we have no jurisdiction to pass upon this type of question in an interlocutory review by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. G.P.
...judgment; certiorari may not be used to circumvent that limitation. State v. Brown, supra; Nellen v. State, supra; Couse v. Canal Authority, 197 So.2d 841 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967), cert. discharged, 209 So.2d 865 (Fla.1968). We recognize that we are in conflict with several of our sister courts ......
-
Couse v. Canal Authority, 36443
...of great public interest in order that the Supreme Court may again be requested to review and adjudicate the question at this time.' 197 So.2d 841, 842. The petition was originally transferred by this Court to the district court under Rule 2.1 a(5)(d), F.A.R., 32 F.S.A., as one for review o......
-
Hudson v. Canal Authority
...adversely to the appellant in the following cases: Staplin v. Canal Authority, 208 So.2d 853 (Fla.App.1st, 1968); Couse v. Canal Authority, 197 So.2d 841 (Fla.App.1st, 1967) and 209 So.2d 865 (Fla.1968) and therefore on the authority of the cases cited supra, the order appealed from is here......