Gordon v. Norris
| Decision Date | 05 December 1956 |
| Citation | 90 So.2d 914 |
| Parties | H. M. GORDON and Edith H. Gordon, Plaintiffs, v. F. H. NORRIS and Lois L. Norris, Defendants. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
H. L. Pringle, Leesburg, for plaintiffs.
Z. D. Giles, Leesburg, for defendants.
The Honorable T. G. Futch, as Circuit Judge of the Fifth Judicial Circuit, has filed in this Court a Certificate under Rule 27 of the Supreme Court Rules, 31 F.S.A., certifying for our reply the question hereafter stated.
The Certificate submits a 'statement of facts' and propounds the following 'question of law:'
'It appearing from the stipulated facts that the plaintiffs own land, recently acquired, to the from which there is no established way of ingress and egress,--that by crossing the defendants' land which lies to the north and with which unity of title once existed, a circuitous way of ingress and egress can be established,--that the most direct and practicable route of ingress and egress to and from the plaintiffs' land is to the east thereof over lands of third persons the title to which has not, since the original grant from the state, been in unity with the land of the plaintiffs:
'Query: Are the plaintiffs, as a matter of law, entitled to the establishment of a way of necessity to and from their said land, and, if so, should it be the most direct and practicable way across the lands of third persons with which no unity of title has existed since the original grant from the state, or should it be over a more circuitous and less practicable route across lands with which a unity of title existed in 1885 and not since, and are the owners of the land over which the way of necessity should be established entitled to compensation therefor, and, if so, how and by whom should such compensation be determined and fixed?'
Despite our desire to be of assistance in the expeditious disposition of pending questions within the limits of Rule 27, supra, we find it necessary to deny the described Certificate.
In order to avoid intruding on established areas of judicial procedure the exercise of jurisdiction under the rule necessarily has its limitations. Some of these are: (1) the essential facts must be agreed upon thereby producing a single determinative question of law the answer to which would be dispositive of the entire cause; (2) this court must not be required to speculate on the existence or nonexistence of essential facts in order to formulate its legal conclusion; (3) this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
First Nat. Bank & Trust Co. v. Great American Ins. Co., 71--513
...when it might involve the rights of a person or persons who are not parties to the cause, which might well be the case here. Gordon v. Norris, Fla.1957, 90 So.2d 914; Dade County v. Philbrick, In accordance with the foregoing, we must decline to answer the questions so certified, and remand......
-
Jaworski v. City of Opa-Locka
...are illustrated by our decisions in Schwob Company v. Florida Industrial Commission, 152 Fla. 203, 11 So.2d 782, and, Gordon et al. v. Norris et al., Fla., 90 So.2d 914. Since the creation of the District Courts of Appeal, numerous questions have been certified to those courts for answer. C......
-
Clark v. Suncoast Hospital, Inc., 76--1222
...that our answer will be dispositive of their case. See Fla.App. Rule 4.6(a). Cf., Dees v. State, 295 So.2d 296 (Fla.1974); Gordon v. Norris, 90 So.2d 914 (Fla.1956). Admittedly, the question is without controlling precedent in this state. Plaintiffs make a forceful argument that as children......
-
Newcomb v. Roarty
...cited we also attempted to announce several basic rules governing the certification of questions. In the more recent case of Gordon v. Norris, Fla.1956, 90 So.2d 914, we further attempted to delineate in detail a number of the controlling conditions precedent to the acceptance of a certific......