Diamond Berk Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Goldstein
| Decision Date | 05 February 1958 |
| Citation | 100 So.2d 420 |
| Parties | DIAMOND BERK INSURANCE AGENCY, Inc., Petitioner, v. Sam A. GOLDSTEIN et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
French & Skolnick, Miami, for petitioner.
Aronovitz, Aronovitz & Haverfield, Miami, for respondents.
Petitioner seeks to review an order of the District Court of Appeal denying its motion to dismiss, because of lack of jurisdiction, the appeal of respondents from an adverse judgment in the trial court.
Whether this Court has the power under amended Article V of the Constitution, F.S.A., to decide the correctness or propriety of an order of this nature under the limited authority granted in the aforesaid Article, § 4, authorizing us to '* * * review by certiorari any decision of a district court of appeal that (1) affects a class of constitutional or state officers, or (2) that passes upon a question certified by the district court of appel to be of great public interest, or (3) that is in direct conflict with a decision of another district court of appeal or of the supreme court on the same point of law. * * *' (Emphasis supplied.) is, for reasons hereafter pointed out, not necessary to the disposition of this cause, and therefore is not decided. It is not inappropriate to observe, however, that under the constitutional plan the powers of this Court to review decisions of the district courts of appeal are limited and proscribed.
Turning now to the problem at hand, the unsuccessful litigants in the trial court filed their notice of appeal in the district court instead of in the trial court. This, adversaries argue, does not give the district court of appeal jurisdiction of the cause (Conne v. Saffan, Fla., 87 So.2d 586) and therefore the district court, in refusing to dismiss the appeal, rendered a 'decision * * * in direct conflict' (emphasis supplied) with the above case. This is not primarily a matter of conflict in decisions justifying review by this court under paragraph 3, supra, but brings into play the provisions of Article V empowering this Court to 'issue writs of prohibition * * * to the district courts of appeal. * * *'
Certiorari denied without prejudice to apply for prohibition to this Court.
Certiorari denied.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Snedeker v. Vernmar, Limited
...this Court to review decisions of the district courts of appeal are limited' and strictly proscribed, citing Diamond Berk Insurance Agency, Inc. v. Goldstein, Fla., 100 So.2d 420. The corollary is that the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is also proscribed so that both may operate in inde......
-
Sinnamon v. Fowlkes
...the powers of this Court to review decisions of the district courts of appeal are limited and proscribed.' Diamond Berk Insurance Agency, Inc., v. Goldstein, Fla., 100 So.2d 420, 421. Certiorari TERRELL, C. J., and HOBSON, ROBERTS and THORNAL, JJ, concur. ...
-
State ex rel. Owens v. Pearson
...jurisdiction in prohibition in at least one case 4 where an almost identical question was involved. The original appearance of the Diamond Berk case in this Court 5 was a certiorari proceeding questioning the power of the district court to entertain an appeal taken from a trial court where ......
-
State ex rel. Pettigrew v. Kirk, 40534
...may be treated in another category invoking our jurisdiction. See Marshall v. Bacon (Fla.), 97 So.2d 252; Diamond Berk Ins. Agency, Inc., v. Goldstein, Inc. (Fla.), 100 So.2d 420, and Harper v. State (Fla.), 172 So.2d 454. Therefore, even if the remedy in the nature of quo warranto applied ......
-
Jurisdiction creep and the Florida Supreme Court.
...(11) See id. [section] 4(2). (12) Ansin v. Thurston, 101 So. 2d 808, 810 (Fla. 1958) (citing Diamond Berk Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Goldstein, 100 So. 2d 420, 421 (Fla. 1958); Sinnamon v. Fowlkes, 101 So. 2d 375, 377 (Fla. (13) 103 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 1958). The district court decision read in its ......